Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. DL037147 Ronald P. Kreber, Judge.
John F.F. Bovee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Marissa Bejarano, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
O’LEARY, ACTING P. J.
C.H. appeals from a judgment after the juvenile court declared him a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, found true he committed two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), placed him on probation, and ordered he serve 90 days. C.H. argues insufficient evidence supports the court’s findings he committed two counts of second degree robbery. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
FACTS
One February afternoon, Y.N. and Y.R. were selling chocolate in front of a drug store. About two hours later, they went to eat dinner at a nearby fast food restaurant. While they were eating, they noticed two young men, later identified as C.H. and C.G., staring at them. Y.N. and Y.R. finished eating and returned to the drug store. Before they reached their destination, C.H. and C.G. ran up to them.
C.H. said, “You are getting jacked[, ]” and C.G. stated, “‘Give me your chocolates.’” Y.R. gave C.G. $10 and with C.G.’s permission, he left. Either C.H. or C.G., or both told Y.N., “‘Give us your money and chocolates.’” When Y.N. refused, C.G. threw him to the ground and reached into his pockets; Y.N. tried to fight him off. C.H. took Y.N.’s hat from his head. When Y.R. looked back, he saw Y.N. laying on the ground and the robbers running away with money, chocolate, and Y.N.’s hat. Y.N. and Y.R. called their employer, who arrived at the location, and they eventually found C.H. and C.G. Officer Colton Lee Kirwan responded and spoke with the boys. Both C.H. and C.G. removed money from their pockets and returned it to Y.R. C.H. returned Y.N.’s hat. Kirwan arrested C.H. and C.G.
DISCUSSION
C.H. argues insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings he committed the robberies directly or as an aider and abettor because the prosecutor offered no evidence he was directly involved but instead was an innocent observer. We disagree.
In reviewing the juvenile court’s true findings on a juvenile petition, we apply the same standard of review that is used to determine the sufficiency of the evidence for criminal convictions. (In re Brandon G. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1079-1080.) To establish the offense of second degree robbery, the prosecution must prove “(1) the victim had possession of property of some value, (2) the property was taken from the victim or his or her personal presence, (3) the property was taken against the will of the victim, (4) the taking was by either force or fear, and (5) the property was taken with the specific intent to permanently deprive the victim of the property.” (People v. Magee (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 188, 195, fn. 4.) Additionally, possession of recently stolen property can support an inference of guilt as to robbery. (People v. Anderson (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 919, 947.)
Here, the evidence demonstrated both C.H. and C.G., after earlier staring down Y.N. and Y.R., ran up to them and demanded their money and chocolate. Although C.H. focuses on conflicting evidence regarding whether he demanded the chocolates, C.H. does not dispute he said, “You are getting jacked[.]” After C.G. took Y.R’s money, C.G. demanded Y.N.’s money and chocolate, and when Y.N. refused, C.G. pushed him to the ground and tried to reach into his pockets. At some point, C.H. took Y.N.’s hat from his head. Both Y.R. and Y.N. testified they were scared. C.H. later returned money to Y.R. and the hat to Y.N.
Based on all this evidence it was certainly reasonable for the trier of fact to conclude C.H. and C.G. acted in concert to rob the victims. That C.H. told the boys they were being jacked evidences he was a direct perpetrator in the robbery. And that he later returned money and the hat to the victims supports an inference he was guilty of robbery.
People v. Cook (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1366 (Cook), is instructive. In that case, minor defendant and his friend confronted a man near some railroad tracks. Defendant said to the man, “break [sic] yourself” or “brake yourself.” The man retreated and dropped his bag, and defendant’s friend picked up the bag and began to leave. Defendant then killed the man. The court affirmed defendant’s convictions for robbery and murder.
C.H. tries to distinguish Cook, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th 1364, on the basis it was a murder case. It did involve murder, but the Cook court addressed the issue of whether the court erred in failing to instruct on aiding and abetting. The court stated: “In this case, the uncontradicted evidence... was that defendant provided the ‘force or fear’ necessary to accomplish the robbery. As such, he was one of the direct perpetrators of the offense of robbery, even if he did not physically deprive the victim of his property.” (Id. at p. 1371.)
Despite C.H.’s insistence he stood there quietly, with his hands by his sides, watching C.G. rob the boys, the record contains sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably conclude C.H. provided the “force or fear” when he exclaimed they were “jacking” the victims, even if he did not physically deprive them of the money and chocolates. Thus, sufficient evidence supports the court’s finding he was a direct perpetrator in the robberies. Therefore, we need not address C.H.’s claim there was insufficient evidence he aided and abetted the robbery.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: ARONSON, J., FYBEL, J.