Opinion
B209068
7-14-2009
In re E.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. E.M., Defendant and Appellant.
Holly Jackson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Robert C. Schneider, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Minor E.M. appeals from the order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) because he committed two robberies. He contends there was insufficient evidence he took part in one of robberies. We affirm.
Not to be Published in the Official Reports
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 29, 2008, three separate robberies occurred between 3:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. near the intersection of Balboa and Vanowen in Los Angeles. In each incident, a group of three to five young males confronted their targets and, by threats of violence or by striking the victims, took their iPods. Petitions were filed asking that C.F. and E.M. (minor) be declared wards of the juvenile court because of their involvement in the robberies. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.)
M.P., the victim of the first robbery, identified minor and C.F. in a field show-up. When asked at the hearing whether there was anyone in court that he recognized from the robbery, M.P. pointed out C.F. but said nobody else he recognized was present. He was never directly asked whether or not minor had been one of the robbers, and did confirm the accuracy of both of his field identifications. E.B., the victim of the third robbery, identified minor as the person who punched him and took his iPod both at the hearing and at a pretrial photo lineup. K.A., the victim of the second robbery, did not see who robbed him, was unable to make a pretrial photo lineup identification, and could not say whether the two persons who punched him and took his iPod were in court. He recalled that one of his attackers wore a brown shirt and another had spiked hair. A friend of K.A.s who was with him during the robbery identified C.F. as one of the attackers both at the hearing and at a pretrial photo lineup.
About 90 minutes after the last robbery, police officers saw C.F. and minor together in the area where the robberies occurred, and detained the pair because they matched the robbers descriptions. C.F. and minor both consented to a police search. Two sets of earbuds were found on C.F. A black iPod and two sets of earbuds were found on minor. K.A. identified as his one of the earbud sets found in minors pocket. C.F. told the officers that he had been present at two of the robberies, that he had actually taken an iPod at one of those, and that a friend of his ran off with that iPod.
The juvenile court dismissed the first count but sustained the two counts relating to victims K.A. and E.B. and committed minor to camp-community placement. Minor contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain the petition as it related to the robbery of K.A.
DISCUSSION
Minor argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the petition on the second count because: no one identified him as being present at the scene of K.A.s robbery; when searched by police he did not exhibit behavior typical of someone who had committed a robbery; and the headphones found on his person might not have belonged to K.A. We consider the petition under the substantial evidence standard, in which we "review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence — that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value — such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d. 557, 578.) Because we must construe all inferences in favor of the judgment below, we cannot reverse even if the evidence also reasonably supports another finding. (People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 104.) "[T]he failure of the evidence to conclusively rule out various scenarios under which defendant might not be guilty of robbery does not render the evidence insufficient to support the robbery verdict. [Citation.]" (People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 553.)
We conclude there was ample evidence to sustain the petition. Three robberies took place in close proximity of location and time. Each was virtually identical to the others, with a group of young males using force or fear to take iPods away from teenage boys. E.B. positively identified minor as one of his attackers. Minor does not challenge that evidence or the juvenile courts order in regard to the robbery of E.B., making it undisputed that minor in fact robbed E.B. C.F. was positively identified as one of K.As attackers by K.As friend. C.F. and minor were found together soon after the robberies in the area where they took place. Minor had an iPod and two sets of earbuds in his pockets, and K.A. identified one set of earbuds as his. C.F. also had two sets of earbuds in his pockets, and admitted he was at the scene of both robberies and took part in one of them. Based on all this, it takes no analytical stretch whatsoever to draw the conclusion that C.F. and minor worked in concert on both robberies and that minor therefore took part in robbing K.A. We therefore affirm the juvenile courts order.
Minor relies in part on the fact that he did not match K.A.s testimony that his attacker had spiked hair. However, substantial evidence can otherwise exist to affirm the juvenile courts order despite physical differences between the defendant and a witnesss description. (People v. Marquez (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1307.)
We are somewhat perplexed by the juvenile courts decision to dismiss the petition as to the robbery of M.P. Even though M.P. did not identify minor at the hearing, his pretrial identification of minor is, by itself, substantial evidence that minor robbed him. (People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 480.) Although we did not rely on that evidence for our analysis, along with the testimony of victim E.B., it further tightens the evidentiary web by directly showing that minor committed the other two robberies.
DISPOSITION
For the reasons set forth above, the juvenile courts order determining that minor was a ward of the court based on the robbery of K.A. is affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
BIGELOW, J.
BENDIX, J.