Opinion
No. 108,881.
2013-07-19
In the Matter of A.C.
Appeal from Leavenworth District Court; Michael D. Gibbens, Judge. Rhonda K. Levinson, of Levinson & Levinson PA, of Basehor, for appellant. Joan Lowdon, assistant county attorney, and Todd Thompson, county attorney, for appellee.
Appeal from Leavenworth District Court; Michael D. Gibbens, Judge.
Rhonda K. Levinson, of Levinson & Levinson PA, of Basehor, for appellant. Joan Lowdon, assistant county attorney, and Todd Thompson, county attorney, for appellee.
Before BRUNS, P.J., McANANY and SCHROEDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
The district court adjudicated A.C. as a juvenile offender for committing robbery as defined by K.S.A. 21–3426. On appeal, A.C. contends that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support the adjudication. Based on a review of the record in the light most favorable to the State, we find that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial upon which the district court could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that A.C. committed the crime of robbery. Thus, we affirm.
FACTS
In the early evening of May 28, 2011, T.A. stopped at the Sonic in Tonganoxie. While there, T.A. saw two other juveniles, A.C. and A.R., whom he knew from high school. Although T.A. did not know the names of the young men, he knew A.C. as “Mexican Alan” and A.R. as “Black Allen.” A.C. and A.R. approached T.A.'s car—a 2006 silver Pontiac Grand Prix—and began talking to him. As they were talking, T.A. showed A.C. and A.R. pictures on his laptop computer of some new tires and rims he was planning to purchase. T.A. then agreed to give A.C. and A.R. a ride to a friend's house.
While stopped at a stop sign, A.C.—sitting in the front passenger's seat—told T.A. to get out of the car. Initially, T.A. thought A.C. was joking and he remained in the car. But A.C. then raised his right hand in a threatening manner and again told T.A. to get out of the car. In addition, A.C. demanded T.A.'s cell phone. T.A. would later testify that he went ahead and got out of his car because he “didn't know what [A.C. and A.R.] had on them” and he “didn't want to get hurt because of a car.”
After T.A. got out of the car, A.R.—who had been sitting in the back seat on the passenger's side—came around the backside of the vehicle and pulled him away from the driver's side door. A.R. then got in the car and drove off with A.C. still in the passenger's seat. At about the same time, Andrew and Mary Krum approached the intersection in their vehicle and witnessed a “car take off and a kid screaming” that someone had stolen his car. Mr. Krum identified the car that sped away as a silver Grand Prix.
The Grand Prix was wrecked in a ditch just 200 yards from the intersection. A neighbor told law enforcement that she saw two individuals fleeing from the wreck, which caused significant damage to the front end and undercarriage, totaling the car. Moreover, T.A .'s iPod and cell phone were missing from the vehicle. Although T.A.'s laptop computer was still in the car, it was damaged beyond repair.
While there is a discrepancy about who actually dialed 911, it is undisputed that Mr. Krum spoke with the dispatcher and that deputies were sent to the scene of the crime. The Krums also remained at the scene for 45 minutes to an hour after the incident. T.A. told them he had picked up two young men at Sonic and they had kicked him out of his car. Mr. Krum later testified that T.A. said both individuals had the same first name. He thought the names T.A. said were “Mexican Alex” and “Black Alex.”
The first law enforcement officer to make contact with T.A. was Deputy Clair. He testified T.A. was “very panicked” and told him that he had picked up two friends—both named Alan—from Sonic. T.A. told Deputy Clair that both of the young men had “instructed him to get out of the car or they would hurt him.” Deputy Clair testified T.A. informed him that A.C, not A.R., was the one who pulled him away from the vehicle and drove away. T.A. also gave Deputy Clair a description of what A.C and A.R. were wearing and he described one as “Hispanic” and the other as “black.”
Deputy Adams also responded to the scene. During the school year, Deputy Adams was the resource officer for the high school but was assigned to a patrol unit during the summer break. Deputy Adams knew A.C, A.R., and T.A. from his work at the high school. According to Deputy Adams, T.A. said that he had picked “the Alans” up at Sonic after they had asked him for a ride. Likewise, Deputy Adams described one of the Alans as Hispanic and the other as black.
Several months later, a juvenile offender complaint was filed against A.C alleging that he had committed the crime of robbery. At trial, A.C.'s grandmother testified as an alibi witness. She testified that A.C. arrived at her home in Kansas City, Kansas, around 5 pm on May 27, 2011, and that he was with her all day on May 28. Although she testified that A.C complained of having a headache and a backache on May 28, she did not see that he had any scratches or cuts. She also testified that she did she see A.C. in possession of any electronic devices that were not his.
The district judge did not find the testimony of A.C.'s grandmother to be credible. Even though the judge was concerned about the discrepancy between T.A.'s and Deputy Clair's testimony regarding who drove the car away, he found T.A.'s testimony to be credible beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the judge found that A.C. raising his hand in a threatening matter and demanding that T.A. get out of the car was sufficient to constitute a “threat of bodily harm.” Thus, the judge adjudicated A.C. to have committed the crime of robbery, sentenced him to 36 months' in the Youth Correctional Facility, but then suspended that sentence and placed him on 12 months of intensive supervised probation with community corrections, and required him to pay restitution.
Analysis
On appeal, A.C. contends there was insufficient evidence to support the adjudication. When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged in a juvenile offender adjudication, we review the claim by looking at all the evidence in a light most favorable to the State to determine whether a rational factfinder could have found that the juvenile committed the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. See In re B.M.B, 264 Kan. 417, 433, 955 P.2d 1302 (1998). In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support an adjudication, we do not reweigh the evidence or the credibility of witnesses. See State v. Hall, 292 Kan. 841, 859, 257 P.3d 272 (2011).
Here, A.C. was charged under K.S.A. 21–3426, which defines robbery as “the taking of property from the person or presence of another by force or by threat of bodily harm to any person.” In viewing the record in the light most favorable to the State, we find there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support A.C.'s conviction. Specifically, the district judge found T.A.'s version of the events to be credible. T.A. testified that while he was stopped at a stop sign, A.C. raised his hand in a threatening manner and told him to get out of his car and to leave his cell phone. T.A. further testified that he got out of the car because he was afraid that A.C. and A.R. would hurt him.
Furthermore, it is undisputed that the car crashed into a ditch just 200 yards away from the intersection. According to the evidence in the record, T.A.'s car was totaled and his laptop computer was damaged beyond repair. Moreover, T.A.'s cell phone and his iPod were missing from the car.
Although there were slight discrepancies in the testimony, other witnesses corroborated nearly all of the events described by T.A. In particular, the testimony of the Krums—who came upon the scene while the events were still unfolding—corroborated T.A.'s testimony. Ultimately, while the district judge found the testimony of T.A., the Krums, and the deputies to be credible, he specifically found that the testimony of A.C.'s alibi witness was not credible.
Accordingly, after viewing the record in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude there was sufficient evidence presented at trial on which a reasonable factfinder could rely to find that A.C. committed the crime of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt.
Affirmed.