In re Noah K. CA2/4

Filed 1/27/14 In re Noah K. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re NOAH K., a Person Coming Under B247711 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County THE PEOPLE, Super. Ct. No. VJ42833)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

NOAH K.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephanie M. Davis, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. Arielle Bases, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________

Noah K. appeals from an order of the juvenile court declaring him a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 after the court found true an allegation that he committed second degree robbery, a felony, in violation of Penal Code section 211. His appointed counsel found no arguable issues for appeal. We find no basis for reversal and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Lawrence W., 15 years old, was skateboarding in a parking lot at an elementary school on the afternoon of July 16, 2012. He was approached by three young men walking shoulder to shoulder. Lawrence identified appellant as the person in the middle of the group. Appellant told Lawrence to empty his pockets. As he did so, the man to appellant’s right brandished a silver pocket knife. Appellant denied seeing the knife and said he did not know about it. Lawrence was afraid he would be harmed if he resisted. So he emptied his pockets, taking out a cell phone. Appellant took the cell phone. The three men walked to a car and drove away. Lawrence reported the robbery. He had a hunch that he knew the man in the middle and looked on Facebook for photographs posted by friends. He found a photo of appellant, who attended the same high school. He told an investigating officer that he knew one of the robbers. Deputy Sheriff Aaron King was assigned to investigate the robbery. He spoke to Lawrence, who identified appellant as the person who took his cell phone. Deputy King 1 contacted appellant. Appellant was advised of his Miranda rights and acknowledged that he understood them. He initially denied any knowledge or involvement in the robbery of Lawrence. Deputy King told him that he had been positively identified by the victim, who knew him from school. Appellant admitted that he told Lawrence to empty his pockets and took the telephone, but said he was not the person with the knife. Deputy King asked where the cell phone was. Appellant told him that he gave it to a friend to hold. Deputy King contacted that person and recovered a cell phone. He took the phone