In re Paris L. CA2/2

Filed 11/19/13 In re Paris L. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re PARIS L., a Person Coming Under B245527 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. FJ49944)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PARIS L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Philip K. Mautino, Judge. Affirmed.

Bruce G. Finebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez and Rene Judkiewicz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

On February 17, 2012, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that 17-year-old appellant Paris L. had committed one count of second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211, a felony. Following an adjudication hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition and declared appellant a ward of the court. Appellant was subsequently detained on November 19, 2012, in connection with an adult case, and the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction as of that date. Appellant contends (1) the juvenile court committed prejudicial error by admitting testimonial and hearsay statements of a 911 call, and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the true finding on the robbery count. We affirm. FACTS Prosecution Case On December 22, 2011, Terrence Dow (Dow) called 911. He began the phone call by stating, “I just got robbed for my phone, got beat up by 5 boys on 40th and Menlo.” Upon further questioning, Dow told the 911 operator that “it was actually one but it was like four were with him.” Dow described the person who robbed him as “Black,” wearing a gray jacket, jeans, and blue slippers. Los Angeles Police Department Officer Eduardo Garcia responded to the radio call regarding the incident. He saw appellant, who matched the suspect’s description, and he identified appellant in court as the person who matched the description. After the police arrested appellant, they were in contact with his mother, who subsequently gave the police Dow’s cell phone. Defense Case Appellant testified that his “friend” Dow and another person were celebrating appellant’s birthday. Dow left to get some marijuana. When Dow came back, he was on his cell phone. Dow pulled up his pants, which caused appellant to think Dow was about to attack him. In response, appellant ran toward Dow and hit him. Dow dropped his phone. Appellant did not pick up his friend’s phone, and he did not see who picked it up. Appellant saw Dow once more that day, but Dow did not ask for his phone.