Opinion
A132729
12-28-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.P., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ10015152)
T.P. appeals from jurisdictional and dispositional orders made by the juvenile court. The court sustained one count of a wardship petition, finding the minor committed a robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The court placed the minor on probation, with custody to remain with the parents. The minor's appellate counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to the minor, result in reversal or modification of the orders. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel declares the minor was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the juvenile court's orders.
BACKGROUND
Vanessa Guillory testified she was walking on Joaquin Avenue in Oakland on May 25, 2011. It was about 6:30 p.m. and still light. It was quiet in the residential neighborhood, and she did not recall anyone else on the street.
She heard someone running up behind her and then felt a pull on the large tote handbag she was carrying over her left shoulder. She turned around and pulled back on the bag. She saw four young men, one standing approximately three feet away pulling on the bag, one next to him, and the other two standing about five feet away. The young man pulling on the bag said something like, " 'Bitch, give it up. Bitch, I want it all.' " Guillory refused for a second or two, then relinquished the handbag because she was scared and confused, and did not know whether the other three young men would attack her or whether they were armed. "My life is more important than belongings."
The young men then ran away, as a group. Guillory could hear that more than one of them was laughing. She did not recall seeing whether the young man who grabbed her bag passed it to one of the others. She screamed for help and began chasing after them, but lost sight of them as they turned a corner. A woman who was driving by about a minute later called the police for her.
The police arrived about 10 or 15 minutes later, and Guillory told them what had happened and gave them a description. At a subsequent "cold show," Guillory was shown each of the four young men individually, and she positively identified them. Guillory "was about 75" percent sure they were the perpetrators, and she identified them because she "recalled their faces." She could not say, however, whether one of them was the person who had grabbed her handbag. She could not recall exactly who did what because the incident took less than five seconds and she was scared.
After searching the area toward which the young men had run, the police were eventually told by someone at a small apartment complex the four individuals the police were looking for might be in the neighboring apartment. After no one answered the door, the police obtained a telephone number connected with the apartment and called. Shortly thereafter one of the young men came to the door and was detained. The police entered and found the other three, including T.P. Guillory's handbag was later found in a back bedroom; numerous items were missing and never found, including credit, ATM, BART and Starbucks cards, parts of Guillory's cell phone and $15 in cash.
The minor was arrested, and after being advised of his Miranda rights, he gave a statement to the police in which he stated another one of the four young men, Bradley Gentry, had grabbed the handbag. The minor stated he was standing about 10 feet away and admitted to the officer having prior knowledge Bradley was going to take the purse. Bradley had told the minor on the phone before they met that day that he (Bradley) was going to steal something. The minor had not answered the door when the police knocked because " 'I thought if I didn't take the purse I wouldn't get in trouble, and my friends told me not to answer the door for the police.' " Another one of the young men, James D., told the police they "all" stole the handbag.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
At the close of the prosecution's case, the minor moved to dismiss the Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition charging him with robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496). The juvenile court denied the motion, finding it clear "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the minor and the two other minors before it "did participate in the offense." "[W]hat we . . . have is a crime facilitated by the operation of all four individuals working together to steal the purse and intimidate and frighten the victim while the purse was being stolen."
The juvenile court ultimately sustained the robbery allegation, made no finding as to the receiving stolen property allegation. The probation sentencing report stated the minor told the probation officer he did not expect Bradley to actually commit a robbery, he felt he had not taken part in a robbery and was just a spectator, and he felt had suffered enough and " 'served more than enough time' " for the incident. The officer's assessment was that the minor "does not accept any responsibility for the crime." The report also stated the minor had twice been arrested, at least once for suspected robbery, but no findings were made in these cases. Although the juvenile court expressed concern the minor "appears to continue to deny any kind of culpability in connection with the offense," the court placed him on probation with numerous conditions, including a search clause, custody remaining with the parents.
DISCUSSION
Upon review of the record, we discern no arguable issues. There are no search and seizure or identification issues. The minor was ably represented by counsel at all times during the juvenile proceedings. He had a full and fair opportunity to present his case to the juvenile court. The court's finding that the minor committed robbery as alleged in count 1 of the wardship petition is supported by substantial evidence in the record. (See In re Cesar V. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 989, 994-995 [juvenile court findings are reviewed under substantial evidence standard]; see generally People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1116-1117 [discussing aider and abettor liability].) The court also acted well within its discretion in placing the minor on probation, with custody remaining with his parents. (See In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1142 [juvenile court has broad discretion in imposing terms and conditions of probation].)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders are affirmed.
_________________________
Banke, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Marchiano, P. J.
_________________________
Dondero, J.