Opinion
E069066
10-11-2018
In re R.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.L., Defendant and Appellant.
Renee Paradis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, and Michael Pulos and Amanda Lloyd, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. J260793) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Susan Slater, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Renee Paradis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, and Michael Pulos and Amanda Lloyd, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The juvenile court found true allegations defendant and appellant, R.L. (Minor), committed two counts of felony robbery (counts 1 & 2; Pen. Code, § 211) under an aiding and abetting theory. The court released Minor on probation. On appeal, Minor contends insufficient evidence supports the court's findings. We affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
By second amended juvenile wardship petition dated January 13, 2016, the People alleged Minor had committed misdemeanor battery on school property (count 1; § 243.2, subd. (a)(1)), misdemeanor criminal threats (count 2; § 422), two counts of felony battery on a school employee (counts 3 & 5; § 243.6), misdemeanor battery on a school employee (count 4; § 243.6), and felony battery while inflicting serious bodily injury (count 6; § 243, subd. (d)). On June 7, 2016, Minor admitted the count 6 offense as alleged. In return, the court dismissed the allegations in counts 1 through 5. The court declared Minor a ward of the court and placed her on probation in the custody of her mother.
On October 14, 2016, the People filed a subsequent juvenile wardship petition alleging Minor had committed two counts of felony criminal threats. (Counts 1 & 2; § 422.) On November 4, 2016, Minor admitted the count 1 allegation after the People moved to reduce it to a misdemeanor; pursuant to the People's motion, the court dismissed the count 2 offense. The court continued Minor on formal probation in her mother's custody.
On July 7, 2017, the People filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging Minor had committed two counts of felony, second degree robbery (counts 1 & 2; § 211) and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (count 3; § 245, subd. (a)(4)). As to all three counts, the People alleged Minor committed them for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b).) On July 19, 2017, the People also filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging Minor had violated the terms of her probation by committing the aforementioned crimes; the court later dismissed the violation of probation allegation pursuant to the People's motion.
On August 7, 2017, the court held a trial on the allegations in the latest petition. Victim 1 testified that on July 6, 2017, around midnight, he was seated with his coworker, Victim 2, at a train station in Los Angeles County. Around eight people approached and circled around them, one of whom he identified as Minor. One of the individuals asked to borrow his bicycle. Someone in the group asked what he had in his backpack. Another member of the group hit him in the head three times with a closed fist; the punches caused him to fall to the ground.
Members of the group punched Victim 1 an additional two to three times once he fell to the ground. Members of the group started going through his backpack. Someone took his cell phone from his pocket. The members of the group who were not actively engaged in hitting him prevented him from getting up. The members of the group left together with his bicycle.
Victim 1 sustained a fractured nose. When he arrived home, he found that his debit card and headphones were missing from his backpack.
On cross-examination, Victim 1 testified Minor never said anything to him, never touched him, and did not prevent him from getting up or trying to get away. Minor left before other members of the group who left thereafter, but she left after some of Victim 1's possessions had already been taken. Three members of the group remained to attempt to get the password for his phone, which he refused to give them.
Victim 2 testified he and Victim 1 were approached by eight or nine people. The group circled around them. Multiple members of the group asked to see inside his backpack and for him to give them his possessions. Victim 2's cell phone was taken by a girl who returned it 10 minutes later. Victim 2 did not recognize Minor as one of the individuals in the group. One of the males in the group punched him in the mouth.
Several members of the group attempted to get into Victim 2's backpack. One member of the group got into Victim 1's backpack and took something out. The group encircled Victim 1 and three guys punched him. Victim 1 fell to the ground. One of the guys in the group demanded Victim 1's cell phone password.
When the train arrived, all members of the group ran off together at the same time. The same girl who initially took Victim 2's cell phone left with Victim 1's bicycle after the group pulled it away from the Victims' hands. Victim 2 called 911.
A Los Angeles police officer responded to the 911 call at approximately 12:45 a.m. Victim 1 told the officer Minor was one of the individuals who surrounded him and blocked his egress while the others punched and kicked him and stole his possessions.
Another officer testified he interviewed Minor on July 6, 2017. She told him she was at the train station with several others; two of the males she was with were members of a Compton Blood gang. Minor reported that she saw the gang members rob and attack the Victims; the gang members took a cell phone and backpack. Minor denied being part of the robbery. She said she was from the PJ Watts Crips gang and went by the moniker "Rara."
A third officer testified he attempted to stop a group of approximately 10 individuals on July 6, 2017. Six of the individuals stopped; one of them was Minor. One of the individuals with whom Minor was walking was in possession of the bicycle previously identified as belonging to Victim 1. The first officer conducted an in-field show-up wherein Victim 1 identified Minor as one of the persons who participated in the incident at the train station; the officer showed six suspects to Victim 1; he identified all of them as involved in the incident.
A fourth officer, whom the parties stipulated qualified as a gang expert, testified the female who took Victim 2's cell phone and Victim 1's bicycle was an active member of the PJ Watts Crips gang. He opined that Minor was also a member of the PJ Watts Crips gang based upon her statement that she was from "PJ's." Based on a hypothetical matching the facts of the instant case, in which a robbery was committed by a group of individuals, two of whom were documented PJ Watts Crips gang members, the officer opined the offenses were committed for the benefit of, in association with, and at the direction of a criminal street gang.
After the People's case-in-chief, defense counsel moved to dismiss all charges. The court found sufficient evidence to proceed on counts 1 and 2, but dismissed count 3 and the gang enhancement allegations.
Minor then testified that she walked to the train station where she met two of her sisters and her cousin. Her sister's friends were also there. In total, she believed there were about eight people in the group.
The entire group approached the Victims at the same time. Minor's sister asked Victim 1 for a cigarette and then tried to take his bicycle from him. Minor's sister punched Victim 2 in the mouth, took his cell phone, and ran off. Minor's sister realized the cell phone was broken, so she returned it to Victim 2; however, she then snatched the bicycle; two boys whom Minor did not know and who told her they were from a Blood gang in Compton, came up and started punching Victim 2 in the face. The boys then took his backpack and emptied it, taking money, a cell phone, a credit card, and headphones. During the fracas, Minor stood approximately 11 to 12 feet away.
On cross-examination, Minor testified the boys were beating Victim 1.
Minor did not know the group intended to rob the Victims. She did not intend to help them. She never prevented the Victims from leaving. Minor and her sister walked away and boarded a train. Her sister who had stolen the bicycle boarded another car on the same train. They went to Long Beach, where they were arrested once they exited the train. Minor denied being a member of the PJ Watts Crips gang.
The court rendered the following findings: "I indicated earlier that I thought that . . . under the theory of aiding and abetting that [Minor] was involved in these robberies. It is a, in my opinion, a close call as to what her intent was and whether or not there was a reckless intent for me to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that she was an aider and abettor to these robberies, but given the description of how the group acted together, that they were part of a circle, that they were prevented from—that the two victims were prevented from either helping each other or getting away, that they all left at the same time on the same train, that they were all found together, a significant time later, had to have been at least a half an hour to 45 minutes later if they had taken the train down to Long Beach and gotten to [Pacific Coast Highway] where they were stopped . . . ." "I am going to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that she was involved as an aider and abettor in both counts 1 and 2, the robberies, and I will sustain those counts." The court released Minor from juvenile hall to the custody of her mother on probation pending further hearing on modified terms.
The continued hearing for modification of Minor's probation terms is not included in the record on appeal. --------
II. DISCUSSION
Minor contends insufficient evidence supports the court's findings sustaining the allegations that Minor aided and abetted the commission of the two robberies. We disagree.
"In reviewing a challenge of the sufficiency of the evidence, we apply the following standard of review: '[We] consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment and presume the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence in support of the judgment. The test is whether substantial evidence supports the decision, not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citations.] Our sole function is to determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.]" (In re Arcenio V. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 613, 615; accord, In re J.R. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 805, 814, review granted Aug. 15, 2018, S249205.) "The California Supreme Court has held, 'Reversal on this ground is unwarranted unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction]."' [Citations.]" (In re Arcenio V., supra, at p. 616.)
"'[A] person who aids and abets a crime is guilty of that crime even if someone else committed some or all of the criminal acts.' [Citation] '[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.' [Citation.] 'Thus, proof of aider and abettor liability requires proof in three distinct areas: (a) the direct perpetrator's actus reus—a crime committed by the direct perpetrator, (b) the aider and abettor's mens rea—knowledge of the direct perpetrator's unlawful intent and an intent to assist in achieving those unlawful ends, and (c) the aider and abettor's actus reus—conduct by the aider and abettor that in fact assists the achievement of the crime.' [Citation.] '[N]either presence at the scene of a crime nor knowledge of, but failure to prevent it, is sufficient to establish aiding and abetting its commission. [Citations.] However, "[a]mong the factors which may be considered in making the determination of aiding and abetting are: presence at the scene of the crime, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense."' [Citaions.]" (In re J.R., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at pp. 813-814) "'Whether defendant aided and abetted the crime is a question of fact, and on appeal all conflicts in the evidence and reasonable inferences must be resolved in favor of the judgment.' [Citation.]" (People v. Campbell (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 402, 409.)
Here, sufficient evidence supports the court's findings. Both Victims 1 and 2 testified that all members of the group, which Victim 1 testified included Minor, approached and encircled them. Minor herself testified that she, as part of a group of around eight people, approached the Victims. The group included Minor's two sisters, her cousin, and her sister's friend. One of Minor's sisters, by Minor's own testimony, was one of the primary perpetrators of the offenses. (In re J.R., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 814 [offender's presence at the scene and companionship with those who committed the offense is relevant in determining whether she aided and abetted the offense].) Victim 1 told one of the officers that morning that Minor was one of the individuals who surrounded him and blocked his exit while the others punched and kicked him and stole his possessions.
As Minor herself testified, all the members of the group left together on the same train. An officer apprehended Minor with, including Minor, a total of six members of the group who assaulted the Victims, including one who was riding the stolen bicycle. Victim 1 identified all six individuals, including Minor, as members of the group who were involved in the incident to an officer at an in-field show-up later that morning. (In re J.R., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 814 [offender's conduct after the offense relevant in determining whether she aided and abetted the offense].)
In fact, there was some evidence from which one could conclude Minor was not just an aider and abettor, but an active participant. Victim 1 testified that all members of the group who had surrounded him were attempting to pull the back end of the bicycle away from the Victims, which would inferentially include Minor in an active role in the robbery, not just as an aider and abettor. Victim 2 likewise testified that "everyone" in the group "was trying to pull the bike" away from the Victims. Thus, sufficient evidence supported the court's finding that Minor had, at the very least, acted as an aider and abettor to the robberies of the Victims.
Minor exposits In re Lynette G. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 1087, In re Gary F. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1076, People v. Campbell, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th 402, In re Jose T. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1455, and In re Juan G. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1 for the proposition that insufficient evidence supported the court's true findings on the allegations in the instant case. However, although the evidence adduced in those cases was arguably stronger than the evidence in this case, none of those cases stood for the proposition that the facts in those cases were the minimum quantum of proof necessary to qualify as substantial evidence to support a true finding. As discussed above, substantial evidence supported the court's findings in this case.
We acknowledge the Victims' testimonies were internally conflicting at points. For instance, Victim 1 testified on direct that all the members of the group who were not actively engaged in assaulting him prevented him from leaving. However, on cross-examination he testified Minor did not prevent him from getting up or trying to get away. Nonetheless, it was the juvenile court's province to resolve any conflicts in the evidence. (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181; accord, People v. Lavender (2014) 60 Cal.4th 679, 693.) Here, the juvenile court resolved inconsistencies in the testimony in favor of a finding that Minor aided and abetted the robberies. Thus, we have no authority to overrule the juvenile court's factual findings since the testimony upon which those findings were based was not "physically impossible or inherently improbable." (People v. Young, supra, at p. 1181.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J. We concur: CODRINGTON
J. FIELDS
J.