From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re K.N.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Jan 9, 2012
B233339 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2012)

Opinion

B233339

01-09-2012

In re K.N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. K.N., Defendant and Appellant.

Holly Jackson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and David A. Wildman, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TJ18779)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles R. Scarlett, Judge. Affirmed.

Holly Jackson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and David A. Wildman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

K.N., the minor, appeals from the May 3, 2011 adjudication and disposition orders. The juvenile court found she committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and used tear gas (§ 12403.7, subd. (g)), a felony. The minor was placed home on probation. We affirm the orders.

Martha Martinez was walking to a bus stop on May 13, 2010. The minor sprayed Ms. Martinez in the eyes with a substance. The substance made Ms. Martinez's eyes burn and water. The minor's companion grabbed Ms. Martinez's cellular telephone. An investigator showed Ms. Martinez a photographic lineup that included the minor's photograph. The investigating officer told Ms. Martinez to identify a person only if she was positive. Ms. Martinez looked at the minor's photograph and said, "I believe that's her; however, I'm not sure." Ms. Martinez later identified the minor in court.

Detective Gustavo Ramirez interviewed the minor on June 8, 2010. After waiving her Miranda rights, the minor told Detective Ramirez that she was with two friends. They saw Ms. Martinez walking down the street carrying a purse. One of the friends said she wanted the purse. The three women approached Ms. Martinez and asked her for directions. The minor then pepper sprayed Ms. Martinez in the face. One of the minor's friends attempted to grab Ms. Martinez's purse. Ms. Martinez refused to let go of her purse. The friend then grabbed Ms. Martinez's cellular telephone instead. As noted, the minor confessed.

The minor argues the identification evidence was insufficient to prove she participated in the robbery. This is a frivolous contention in light of the identification testimony and the minor's confession. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the adjudication and presume the existence of every fact the juvenile court could reasonably deduce from the evidence. (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 432; People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 806.) As our Supreme Court explained in Mincey, "The test is whether substantial evidence supports the decision, not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.]" (People v. Mincey, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 432; see People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 638.) Our Supreme Court has further held, "Reversal on this ground is unwarranted unless it appears 'that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the adjudication].' [Citation.]" (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331; accord, People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 577.)

Ms. Martinez viewed the photographic lineup containing the minor's image. Ms. Martinez believed the minor was involved. However, having been advised not to identify anyone unless she was positive, Ms. Martinez indicated she was unsure. At the adjudication hearing, Ms. Martinez positively identified the minor as the person who used the pepper spray. Ms. Martinez was asked on redirect examination, "As you sit here today, are you sure that the girl sitting at the end of the table is the girl that pepper sprayed you on that day," to which Ms. Martinez responded: "Yes. Yeah." This was substantial identification evidence. (People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 480; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.) Even if the identification evidence was insufficient, the minor confessed. No rational argument can be made this evidence is constitutionally insufficient.

The adjudication and disposition orders are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P. J. We concur:

MOSK, J.

KRIEGLER, J.


Summaries of

In re K.N.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Jan 9, 2012
B233339 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2012)
Case details for

In re K.N.

Case Details

Full title:In re K.N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

Date published: Jan 9, 2012

Citations

B233339 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2012)