In re Lincoln A. CA2/1

Filed 1/24/14 In re Lincoln A. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re LINCOLN A., a Person Coming B245096 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. FJ48336)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LINCOLN A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert J. Totten, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed as modified. Laini Millar Melnick, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

A juvenile against whom a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition (petition) alleging forcible rape was sustained, contends the juvenile court committed reversible error by excluding evidence of the victim’s mental health history, which he contends was relevant to the victim’s credibility, a pivotal issue at the adjudication. The juvenile also asserts that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the petition, that the court erroneously informed him he had committed a strike offense, and that it erred in setting a maximum term of confinement. We will remand with an order to modify the order of wardship to strike the maximum term of confinement and, in all other respects, affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The petition alleged that appellant, Lincoln A., committed rape. (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a).) The juvenile court sustained the petition, declared appellant a ward of the court and ordered him placed home on probation. The court declared the offense to be a felony, calculated the maximum term of confinement as 11 years and awarded appellant predisposition credit of 383 days. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On January 22, 2011, at about 3:00 p.m., 17-year-old B.N. argued with her mother as she and her parents drove to B.N.’s grandmother’s house. B.N. was angry and, when the car reached a stoplight near Crenshaw Boulevard, got out and began walking. B.N. was not readily familiar with the neighborhood, having only driven through it in the past. Unable to persuade B.N. to get back in the car, her parents drove away. B.N.’s father was not overly concerned for his daughter’s safety; it was the middle of the day. Appellant, whom B.N. did not know, approached B.N. on a bicycle and began talking to her. She asked him for a cigarette, which they shared. They walked together until appellant said he wanted to meet a friend behind an apartment building. B.N. continued walking with appellant behind the building, making small talk and smoking. She was unconcerned for her safety because, in her neighborhood, “nobody is like that, nobody is dirty.”