Opinion
F060679 Super. Ct. No. 09CEJ600013-2
08-18-2011
In re GABRIEL M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GABRIEL M., Defendant and Appellant.
Candice L. Christensen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Paul E. O'Connor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Franson, J.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Brian M. Arax, Judge.
Candice L. Christensen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Paul E. O'Connor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On December 21, 2009, a juvenile wardship petition was filed alleging that 15-year-old appellant, Gabriel M., committed two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). On March 19, 2010, after a contested jurisdictional hearing, both counts were found true and Gabriel was sentenced to the Division of Juvenile Justice for a maximum term of confinement of four years.
Gabriel argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the identification of him as a perpetrator of the robbery. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS
At roughly 6:45 p.m. on December 17, 2009, A.B. and Pablo M. (both minors) were leaving Lafayette Park in Fresno when they were approached by an African American male and a Hispanic male wearing bandanas over their faces. One of their bandanas was red. The color of the second bandana was described as white by Pablo and brown by A.B.
At least one of the robbers brandished a knife and demanded the victims empty their pockets. The victims' accounts of whether both of the robbers possessed a knife are inconsistent. Pablo gave the robbers a purple I-Pod and A.B. gave the robbers a gold necklace and a cell phone. With their stolen goods secured, the robbers fled.
On the same evening, two witnesses, Codey G. and Ryan C. (both minors), were in the front yard of Codey's house, located across the street from the park. At about 7 p.m., Codey and Ryan watched two "boys" run out of Lafayette Park and pass about 10-15 feet in front of them; neither had a bandana on his face. Codey did not know the boys by name, but recognized them running by his house, made a positive in-field identification of Gabriel on the night of the incident, and positively identified Gabriel and Andrew at trial. Ryan knew both boys and was able to identify each by name. He also later made in-field and in-court identifications of Gabriel and Andrew.
Gabrial is Hispanic; Andrew is African American.
Codey and Ryan did not observe any crime, nor did they see any weapons or stolen property.
As the boys (later identified as Gabriel and Andrew) passed in front of Codey's house, Ryan overheard Gabriel say, "Bubbles is coming to pick us up." Bubbles is the nickname of Gabriel's older brother, Juan. Juan then picked up Gabriel and Andrew in a brown or tan-colored '90s truck in front of Codey's house. Codey recognized the passenger in the truck as Jacob R. Ryan had seen the truck before December 17 at Juan's house.
At 7:10 p.m., City of Fresno Police Officers Christopher Taliaferro and William Wyatt were dispatched to a robbery at Lafayette Park. Officer Ryan and Codey provided the officers with the location of Gabriel and Juan's house, where they went. Officer Wyatt announced his presence to a group of people in the backyard of the house, causing all but one of them to run inside. The lone remaining person in the backyard was Jacob (the passenger identified in Juan's truck); he got down on the ground and exclaimed that he did not do anything. Jacob told Officer Wyatt that he had traded with the African American man inside the house for the I-Pod he had in his pocket. The officers detained and searched everyone in the house. Pablo's purple I-Pod was found in Jacob's pocket, and was the only stolen property found. Officer Wyatt found a red bandana in Juan's truck.
Taliaferro then conducted separate in-field identifications with Codey and Ryan. Ryan positively identified Gabriel and Andrew as the boys running from the park, as well as the truck, and Juan as the driver of the truck. Codey positively identified Gabriel, the truck, Juan as the driver of the truck, and Jacob as the truck's passenger.
DISCUSSION
The sufficiency of the evidence standard in juvenile proceedings is the same as the standard in adult criminal trials. (In re Roderick P. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 801, 809.) The court must, "'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. Ceja (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1134, 1138.) Further, if "'"the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment."'" (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1054.) A reliance on circumstantial evidence does not alter the standard of review in appellate cases. (People v. Bean (1988) 46 Cal.3d 919, 933.)
Gabriel asserts there is insufficient evidence identifying Gabriel as one of the perpetrators of the robbery. Gabriel argues that the inconsistent testimony from the two victims, combined with Codey and Ryan not having seen any crime being committed, renders the totality of the evidence weak and inconclusive. Further, Gabriel contends that the juvenile court failed to entertain the possibility that Jacob was one of the robbers. We disagree.
A witness's inconsistent statements do not speak to their ability to perceive or recollect, it is only evidence of the proper weight to give a person's testimony. (People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 361 (Lewis).) Reviewing courts give substantial deference to the lower court's determinations of the credibility of witnesses. (Id. at 359.) Even if there are suspicious conflicts and inconsistent testimony, reversal of the judgment is not justified. (Ibid.)
The test on appeal is not whether there is an alternative possibility or substantial conflict with the court's decision, rather the test is whether there is substantial evidence in favor of the decision. (In re Gustavo M. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1485, 1497.) When the circumstances surrounding testimony and its weight are exhausted at trial and the trier of fact finds them credible, that decision is binding on the reviewing court. (Ibid.)
Gabriel argues that the testimony from A.B. and Pablo is inconsistent. He highlights A.B.'s claims that there were two knives while Pablo appears certain that only one of the robbers brandished a knife. Also, A.B. recalls one of the robbers saying the word "blood," while Pablo does not remember any specific word being spoken. Gabriel raises these inconsistencies in order to mitigate the amount of deference that should be given to A.B.'s and Pablo's testimony. However, in Lewis, the court expounded that weight and credibility are determinations reserved for the trier of fact. (Lewis, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 359.) In Lewis, the court accepted inconsistent testimony from a mentally unstable witness and declared that inconsistent testimony can be accepted and appropriately weighed by the trier of fact. (Ibid.) The current case involves inconsistent testimony from distressed robbery victims. Surely, even in their distressed state, the victims provided more reliable testimony than the mentally impaired witness in Lewis. The reviewing court does not weigh evidence and looks only for substantial evidence supporting the lower court's judgment.
Moreover, there is strong circumstantial evidence indicating that Gabriel was one of the robbers. A.B. and Pablo both recall one of the robbers being Hispanic and the other being African American. On the night of the robbery, Gabriel and Andrew (Hispanic and African American, respectively) were seen running from Lafayette Park around the same time as the robbery. Codey and Ryan both identified Gabriel and Andrew as the boys running from Lafayette Park that evening. Gabriel and Andrew were seen getting into a brown or tan-colored truck owned and driven by Gabriel's older brother, Juan. Another boy, Jacob, was identified as sitting in Juan's car when Gabriel and Andrew were picked up. Later that night, police discovered Pablo's stolen I-Pod on Jacob. Also, Jacob told Officer Wyatt that he received the stolen I-Pod from the African American male in the house, Andrew, who was seen with Gabriel fleeing from the park earlier that evening. Finally, the police found a red bandana on the floor of Juan's truck.
From this evidence, the trier of fact could reasonably conclude that Gabriel was one of the two robbers.
Gabriel urges the court to consider the possibility that Jacob was one of the robbers. It is true that the only stolen item discovered by the police was found in Jacob's possession. However, alternate possibilities are irrelevant when there is substantial evidence supporting the finding of the trier of fact. (In re Gustavo M., supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at p. 1497.) It is a reasonable inference that Gabriel and Andrew robbed the victims, ran by Codey's house, got in Juan's car, and exchanged the stolen I-Pod with Jacob after reaching the apparent safety of Gabriel's house. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the inference that Gabriel was one of the robbers.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.