Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. YJ31971, Stephanie Davis, Temporary Judge.
Pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 21.
David L. Polsky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CROSKEY, Acting P.J.
T.S. appeals from the order continuing wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) entered as a result of his having committed second degree robbery, during the commission of which he inflicted great bodily injury (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 12022.7, subd. (a)). The juvenile court ordered T.S. home on probation. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Facts.
a. The prosecution’s case.
At approximately 4:00 p.m. on April 19, 2010, 16-year-old L.W. was getting his hair cut at a salon near Ocean Park and Lincoln Boulevard when he received a call on his cell phone. Although he did not recognize the number from which the call had been made, he decided to answer it. The caller was a young man named Jemmie who L.W. played basketball with at the Y.M.C.A. L.W. recognized Jemmie’s voice and Jemmie identified himself, then told L.W. that he was calling because he wanted to buy some marijuana, or “weed.” Jemmie told L.W. that he was near the intersection of 11th Street and Michigan and that L.W. should bring the weed to him there. Jemmie did not say that he was with anyone and L.W., who was approximately nine blocks away, agreed to meet Jemmie at the designated intersection.
L.W. was granted “use immunity” for his testimony.
After he finished getting his hair cut, L.W. went home with his mother, changed his clothes, “picked up [the] weed, and then came back on the bus to where Jemmie was.” L.W. got off the bus and began to talk on the phone with Jemmie, who had gone to an alley between 9th and 10th Streets. L.W. went to the alley and saw Jemmie, who was standing approximately half way between Pico Boulevard and Michigan. Jemmie appeared to be alone and he waved to L.W. to come meet him. L.W. walked the approximately 100 feet down the alley to where Jemmie was standing. Jemmie then told L.W. that “he had an open house and that [they] should go in and possibly smoke and also make the deal.”
L.W. followed Jemmie through a door, into the outdoor area of an apartment complex. Inside the entrance area, on his left side, L.W. “spotted” J.N, K.E. and T.S. L.W. didn’t know the three individuals, but had seen them around Santa Monica High School where he is a student. J.S. then said to L.W., “ ‘You’re getting jacked.’ ” L.W. understood that to mean that the three young men intended to steal the weed.
L.W. was “surprised, ” but decided that he would just give them the weed. However, as he was attempting to get it out of his backpack, T.S. struck him with a closed fist on the left side of his face. L.W. “staggered backwards and kind of slouched against the wall” behind him. L.W. was in shock as T.S., joined by K.E., continued to hit him in the face and side of the head for approximately 45 seconds. L.W. was “on the ground” when he saw T.S., K.E. and J.N. go through his backpack. L.W. saw T.S. take a box containing approximately $200 from the pack. Then, as L.W. lay on the ground “woozy, and shocked, ” J.N. approached him, told L.W. to “ ‘get off the game, ’ ” then walked out the door with T.S. and K.E. L.W. interpreted J.N.’s remark to mean that he should stop selling weed.
After T.S., J.N. and K.E. left, L.W. went through his backpack. His glasses, IPOD, the $200 in a box, the approximately 5 grams of weed and a water pipe were missing. L.W., who had a “really swollen face, a black eye, cuts, and two chipped teeth, ” walked out of the apartment complex, into the alley. He did not know where Jemmie had been during the incident, but Jemmie appeared in the alley. Jemmie told L.W. to walk to a nearby liquor store. L.W. did so and, after a short time, Jemmie arrived with J.N. J.N. gave L.W. his glasses, IPOD and wallet back. The wallet, however, was empty.
L.W. talked about the robbery with Jemmie, who called him on the phone that evening, and two good friends who were not involved in the case. Later, detectives from the Santa Monica Police Department spoke to L.W. about the incident.
b. Defense evidence.
Seventeen-year-old T.S. testified that he “wasn’t even aware of [L.W.’s] existence until [this] case came about.” T.S. had not seen L.W. at school. He had heard, “after [this] case[, ] that [L.W.] played on [T.S.’s] football team or [that] he was a new recruit.” When asked about April 20th, T.S. stated that, when he went to school that day, he was “made aware” of the fact that a robbery had occurred on April 19th and that “one of the students was assaulted.” Some of T.S.’s friends “brought it up and later [he] found out [that he] was [allegedly] involved.” One of L.W.’s friends spoke to T.S. and told him that L.W. “had been robbed and that [T.S., J.N. and K.E.] knew who did it. And if [they] didn’t tell, [L.W.’s] mom was going to press charges against [T.S., J.N. and K.E.]”
T.S. decided to “attempt[] to clear [his] name.” He “told the kids that [he] was nowhere there at the time and that [he] didn’t know what they were talking about and that [it] wasn’t in [his] character.” He stated that, on April 19th, the day of the robbery, he “made [his] way home. [He] changed clothes. [He] went to the PYFC, [or] Pico Youth Family Center. And [he] logged into their computer to use Facebook. [He doesn’t] have a computer at home. And [he] was made aware [that he] should go to [K.E.’s] house to make peace with him. [He] got on the No. 3. [He] took the bus all the way down past Airport and got off... [at] this gas station and made [his] way down to [K.E.’s] house––he lives in a pretty big apartment complex––and stayed there for a little while. [They] were out there for a little bit and J.W. walked [him] towards the bus stop” at approximately 6:00 p.m. It took T.S. “about 40 minutes to get home.”
J.W. testified in K.E.’s defense. He stated that on April 19th he had been at K.E.’s house from approximately 4:15 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. J.W. testified that T.S. was not at K.E.’s house that day.
T.S. testified that he was not in the alley or apartments on April 19th when “somebody... jumped [L.W.] and took his property[.]” He was also “not present” at the liquor store where some of L.W.’s property was returned to him.
2. Procedural history.
On April 30, 2010, a petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleged that T.S. committed the crime of second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211, a felony, when he “unlawfully, and by means of force and fear [took] personal property from the person, possession, and immediate presence of [L.W.].” It was further alleged that, during the commission of the robbery, T.S. “personally inflicted great bodily injury upon [L.W.]” within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a). It was noted that T.S. was, at that time, “on probation or parole and ha[d] suffered a prior sustained felony petition.”
At proceedings held on July 2, 2010, the juvenile court indicated that, as to T.S., it had found that L.W. “was a credible witness. The court looked at him, watched his demeanor, listened to his tone of voice as he was on direct examination and on cross-examination and did find him to be a credible witness. [¶] The witnesses that were called on behalf of [T.S.] and [K.E.], however, the court [did] not find [to have been] credible. As a matter of fact, the three of them taken together totally contradict[ed] each other.... [E]specially telling, ..., [was] the testimony of [J.W.] who was not involved in this case but stated that [T.S.] was not there. He claimed he remembered the day. His testimony about his recollection was not very credible. But he stated that [T.S] was not there on that day. [¶]... [¶] So with respect to [T.S.], the court [found] beyond a reasonable doubt that count 1 and its enhancement [were] true.”
After noting that T.S. was on a community detention program, or CDP, stemming from a January 28, 2010 pending case, the juvenile court indicated that T.S. would remain on CDP until both cases could be finally adjudicated. The juvenile court ordered T.S. and his mother to return to court on August 16, 2010. When, on August 16th a “supplemental preplea [report]” describing the facts underlying the January 28th offense was not ready, the juvenile court continued the matter to September 15, 2010.
On September 15, 2010, T.S. entered a plea in the January 28th matter. He admitted having “committed the crime of being in possession of marijuana on a school ground.” After disposing of the January 28th case, the juvenile court addressed the April 19th robbery. The court indicated that it had “read and considered the probation officer’s reports dated May 18th and” September 15th, as well as letters provided by T.S. on his behalf. After hearing argument by both the prosecutor and T.S.’s counsel, the juvenile court declared T.S.’s status as a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 would continue. The court stated: “The minor’s care, custody, control, and conduct is hereby placed under the supervision of the probation department. He is permitted to remain in the custody of his mother.” The juvenile court indicated that the conditions of probation previously ordered were to remain in full force and effect, then added additional appropriate conditions. T.S. was given pre-commitment custody credit for 28 days.
T.S. filed a timely notice of appeal on September 15, 2010.
This court appointed counsel to represent T.S. on appeal on October 27, 2010.
CONTENTIONS
After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues and requested this court to conduct an independent review of the record. By notice filed January 7, 2011, the clerk of this court advised T.S. to submit within 30 days any contentions, grounds of appeal or arguments he wished this court to consider. No response has been received to date.
REVIEW ON APPEAL
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied T.S.’s counsel has complied fully with counsel’s responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)
DISPOSITION
The order continuing wardship is affirmed.
We concur: KITCHING, J., ALDRICH, J.