In re Rafael S. CA5

Filed 1/9/14 In re Rafael S. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re RAFAEL S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F067280

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JJD065389)

v. RAFAEL S., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Juliet L. Boccone, Judge. Kristen Owen, 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, Kathleen A. McKenna and Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

 Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J., and Franson, J.

At a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found true allegations that appellant, Rafael S., a minor, committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), and that in doing so he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, viz., a knife (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1)). At the subsequent disposition hearing, the juvenile court continued appellant as a ward of the court and ordered him committed to the Tulare County Correctional Center Unit for a period of 240 to 365 days. On appeal, appellant’s sole contention is that the evidence was insufficient to support the instant adjudication. We affirm. FACTS Jurisdiction Hearing Testimony Richard Z. (Richard), age 15, testified that on January 18, 2013, he was walking home from school when two males approached him.1 One of them, who Richard identified at the jurisdiction hearing as appellant, pressed a pocket knife against Richard’s stomach and demanded that Richard give him “everything [he] had.” Richard “g[a]ve him [his] property.” Richard did not know appellant and the other person, but he had seen them before. “[T]hey were bugging [Richard] for the last two months, asking [him] if [he] banged a certain color.” On January 22, 2013, Richard was called to the principal’s office at his school “to look at pictures and give a statement about what happened.” He was shown photographs, but he determined the person who robbed him was not among those whose photographs he was shown. “A couple of hours later,” Richard went back to the principal’s office, looked at more photographs, and saw a photograph of the person who robbed him. At