Opinion
A119975
4-24-2008
In re S.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S. S., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
S. S. appeals from an order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court, placing him on probation, and ordering that he serve 10 weekends in juvenile hall. His counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436). After review of the record, we find no error and find sufficient evidence to sustain the juvenile courts findings, and affirm.
A petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleged that the minor committed attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 664). Evidence adduced at a contested jurisdictional hearing indicated that the minor and three friends (H. A., J. N., and J. M.) were walking near De La Salle High School in Concord and approached two De La Salle students, M. S. and P. H. According to the minors testimony, H. A. said, " `Im gonna pocket check these guys " and the minor replied, "No, youre not." When the two groups were about 10 feet apart, H. A. moved in front of his friends and approached the victim (M. S.), stating " `Give me your money. " S. S., J. N. and J. M. stopped about two feet from H. A. and stood in a semicircle around M. S. and P. H. M. S. was smaller than the other boys and was afraid of getting hurt.
H. A. was 13 or 14 years old; the minor was 17.
M. S. indicated that he did not have any money, to which H. A. responded "pocket check," and reached into M. S.s pockets. He pulled out some papers and threw them on the ground. P. H. again told H. A. that they did not have any money. S. S. said something to the effect of, "Shut the fuck up or Ill beat your ass."
M. S. believed that H. A. might have taken a pack of gum from his pockets. P. H. indicated that H. A. also went through M. S.s backpack, pulled out some pencil lead, and threw it on the ground. No other witnesses corroborated that H. A. also looked in the victims backpack. Neither J. N. nor J. M. said anything, or touched P. H. The entire incident took approximately 30 seconds. S. S. then said, "Lets bounce," and he and his friends went into the parking area of a nearby apartment complex. H. A. told J. N. that he got a pack of gum from the victim.
The victim and his friend went to a gas station and contacted a security guard, who ascertained what had happened and took them to the apartment complex to look for the suspects. The security guard left the victim and P. H. in his car and returned about five to ten minutes later with H. A., S. S. and J. N. The victim identified the three individuals as having been involved in the robbery. Officer Brian Tanner later arrived and took statements from the victim and P. H. He did not take notes during the interviews and wrote his report some three days later. His report identified S.S. as the suspect who asked for money, omitted the minors statement in response to P. H., and also indicated that someone went through P. H.s pockets.
While Officer Tanner interviewed M. S. and P. H., the suspects were seated in the security guards car. They discussed the incident and agreed to tell the police that H. A. bumped into one of the boys, and that they were about to get into a fight with them. S. S. suggested the story of a fight. S. S. later repeated that story to a police officer; he also told his mother that it was someone other than H. A. who went through the victims pockets.
After denying the prosecutions request to amend the petition to allege robbery, the juvenile court sustained the allegation that the minor committed attempted robbery. The minor moved for a new contested jurisdictional hearing, alleging that the juvenile court misapplied the presumption of innocence; the court denied the motion. The court declared the minor a ward of the juvenile court, placed him on probation, and ordered that he serve 10 weekends in juvenile hall and be subject to electronic monitoring during those ten weeks. This timely appeal followed.
The minor was represented by counsel and received a fair jurisdictional hearing. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts finding that the minor committed attempted robbery, under an aider and abettor theory of liability. No error appears in the juvenile courts disposition. There are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal.
Issues of credibility, and conflicts in the evidence, were for the trial court to resolve. The juvenile court specifically stated, "I found both prosecution witnesses very credible. I did not find [the minor] credible."
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
We concur:
Ruvolo, P. J.
Rivera, J.