Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. PJ37939, Robert S. Ambrose, Juvenile Court Referee.
Gloria Cohen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence M. Daniels and William H. Shin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KRIEGLER, J.
Minor Orlando S. appeals from an order declaring him a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 after the juvenile court sustained a petition alleging that he committed one count of second degree robbery of Jesus Cruz on a theory he aided and abetted the perpetrator who committed the robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5.) Orlando was declared a ward of the court and ordered home on probation on April 27, 2007. He timely appealed the judgment.
Orlando contends there was insufficient evidence of aiding and abetting. We hold substantial evidence supports the findings and affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Prosecution Case
On January 27, 2007, Cruz was walking home from a bakery with his girlfriend and Jose Olivares. Orlando, who had been eating at the taco stand next door to the bakery, grabbed Cruz and asked Cruz where he was from. Orlando pushed Cruz and raised his fist as if to attack him. Olivares came to Cruz’s aid and hit Orlando in the back of the head. Orlando fell and got up. Orlando’s brother and a friend arrived in an Impala and joined Orlando in swinging punches and pushing Cruz and Olivares. Brandishing a gun at Cruz, the friend asked Cruz if he wanted to die. Cruz and Olivares backed up to the corner of 83rd Street and Broadway, where Orlando, Orlando’s brother, and the friend began punching Cruz again. Cruz fell to the ground upon being hit on the back of the head by the gun. One of Orlando’s group pulled Cruz up by the chain he was wearing around his neck, choking him, and took the chain. Orlando, his brother, and his friend then ran to the Impala and drove off. Cruz did not see who pulled him.
The weapon turned out to be a fake, plastic gun.
Cruz’s stepfather testified that he saw Orlando and another boy of the same age approach Cruz and Olivares and start hitting them. The stepfather tried to prevent another associate of Orlando from joining the attack. The associate brandished a pistol at him and told him not to get involved if he did not want to die. The stepfather followed Cruz and Olivares after they went around the corner. He saw Orlando and Orlando’s two associates run and get into their car. The stepfather saw one of them lean out of the window holding Cruz’s chain. The stepfather did not know which of them held the chain.
Defense Case
Benito Diaz, who worked at the taco stand, testified that Orlando bought tacos at the taco stand. After finishing his meal, Orlando spoke to another person and that person suddenly pushed Orlando back. The person who pushed Orlando was with two or three other people, including a girl. Someone else came up from behind and hit Orlando. Orlando fell down and individuals came from a car to help him. Orlando was put in the car, but one of the individuals stayed behind to fight one of the people who had attacked Orlando. Orlando and his companions then left.
Orlando’s brother, Jose, testified he and Orlando were at the taco stand while two friends waited for them in Jose’s car. Cruz, dressed in gang attire, walked by the stand and asked Orlando where he was from. Orlando did not respond. Jose returned to the car and waited for Orlando. Jesse Rodriguez, one of the friends in the car, went to see if Orlando was coming. Jose drove to the corner, where he saw Orlando on the sidewalk and Rodriguez pulling Cruz off of Orlando. Jose put Orlando, who could not get up, in the car, and all four of them left. None of them had a plastic weapon.
Orlando testified Jose had taken him and two friends to the taco stand. After eating his tacos, he and his brother started to leave when Cruz asked where Orlando was from, meaning what gang was he from. Cruz looked like a gangster. Orlando had no gang affiliation. Jose said they should leave, but Orlando went back to get another taco. Cruz, who was with another fellow and a girl, approached Orlando again and told him he was from somewhere and asked him if he did gang-banging. When Orlando said no, Cruz called him a “mother fucker” and punched him in the face. Orlando was about to hit back when someone came up behind him and hit him in the back of the head. Orlando fell down. Cruz and his associate punched Orlando while Orlando was down. At that point, Jose arrived in the car. One of Orlando’s friends fought the fellows who had attacked Orlando. Jose put Orlando in the car, because Orlando could not get up by himself, and they drove off. Orlando did not see the gun during the incident.
Rebuttal
Two police officers testified for the prosecution on rebuttal. Multiple small pieces of a plastic replica gun were recovered from 83rd and Broadway. A black handgrip of a plastic gun was recovered from the front passenger seat of the car.
Prosecution’s Theory of the Case
The prosecutor argued Orlando was not the one who pulled the necklace from Cruz’s neck, but was liable for the robbery as an aider and abetter because he was involved in punching and kicking Cruz while the necklace was being taken. In the prosecutor’s view, there was an initial confrontation in front of the taco stand and then an additional confrontation that culminated in the robbery at 83rd Street and Broadway, during which Cruz was hit on the head with the plastic gun and the chain was taken.
Ruling
“We really had conflicting stories from both sides, but there is one thing where there isn’t a conflict. That is the plastic - - that was found on 83rd and Broadway, the pieces of it, and then the handle of it was found in the car, an Impala, which leads the court to believe that the testimony of the brother of Orlando was trying to protect his brother. [¶] The court believes the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of second degree robbery . . . was committed . . . by Orlando.”
DISCUSSION
Sufficiency of the Evidence of Robbery
Orlando contends substantial evidence does not support the finding he committed robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211 as an aider and abettor. Contrary to Orlando’s argument, there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding.
A. Standard of Review
We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the order of wardship. (In re George T. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 620, 630-631.) “The standard of proof in juvenile proceedings involving criminal acts is the same as the standard in adult criminal trials.” (In re Jose R. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 269, 275.)
In assessing a claim of insufficiency of evidence, the reviewing court’s task is to review “the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment . . . 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; accord, People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038, 1052.) The federal standard of review is to the same effect: under principles of federal due process, review for sufficiency of evidence entails not the determination whether the reviewing court itself believes the evidence at trial establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but, instead, “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 317-320.)
B. Robbery
“Robbery is defined as the taking of personal property of some value, however slight, from a person or the person’s immediate presence by means of force or fear, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of the property. [Citations.] To support a robbery conviction, the evidence must show that the requisite intent to steal arose either before or during the commission of the act of force. [Citation.] ‘[I]f the intent arose only after the use of force against the victim, the taking will at most constitute a theft.’ [Citation.] The wrongful intent and the act of force or fear ‘must concur in the sense that the act must be motivated by the intent.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 34.)
“[A] person aids and abets the commission of a crime when he or she, acting with (1) knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator; and (2) the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the commission of the offense[;] (3) by act or advice aids, promotes, encourages or instigates, the commission of the crime.” (People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 561; accord, People v. Williams (2008) 43 Cal.4th 584, 637.) “Whether a person has aided and abetted in the commission of a crime is a question of fact, and on appeal all conflicts in the evidence and attendant reasonable inferences are resolved in favor of the judgment. Among the factors which may be considered in determining aiding and abetting are: presence at the crime scene, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense.” (In re Juan G. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1, 5.)
Substantial Evidence of Robbery
Substantial evidence supports an aiding and abetting finding. Cruz testified his chain necklace was taken from him during an attack that Orlando initiated and participated in. The necklace was pulled off of Cruz when Cruz was on the ground being hit by Orlando and Orlando’s companions. Cruz and Cruz’s step-father testified Orlando and his companions then fled in their car, taking the necklace with them. The evidence Orlando participated in the assault while one of his companions was pulling off the necklace and fled with the thief and the necklace is evidence Orlando participated in the assault with both knowledge of the perpetrator’s unlawful purpose and intent to facilitate the commission of the robbery. (See In re Lynette G. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1091, 1094-1095 [presence at the scene of an assault and robbery, and flight with other perpetrators and the stolen property, is sufficient to establish guilt of robbery as an aider and abettor.]) Orlando’s argument that the evidence shows he wanted to intimidate and fight Cruz, not rob him, is merely a request that we reweigh the evidence. This we will not do. (In re Juan G., supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 6 [“[t]he function of an appellate court is not to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the juvenile court”].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J., MOSK, J.