In re Cory I. CA1/5

Filed 5/27/14 In re Cory I. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re CORY I., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A139423 v. CORY I., (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JW136243) Defendant and Appellant.

The juvenile court found Cory I. aided and abetted a robbery and placed him on probation with various terms and conditions. On appeal, he contends insufficient evidence supported the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding. We affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A June 2013 Welfare and Institutions Code, section 602, subdivision (a) petition alleged appellant committed robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)),1 assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), battery (§ 243, subd. (d)), receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor destruction of evidence (§ 135). The petition included great bodily injury allegations (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) attached to the robbery, assault, and battery counts.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1

Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found the robbery count true and found the other four counts not true. The court found the great bodily injury allegation attached to the robbery count not true. Subsequently, the court declared appellant a ward of the court, placed him on probation in his mother’s home, and imposed various conditions. This appeal followed. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Around 11:00 p.m. on June 4, 2013, the victim, Andy Miranda, was walking home from work through San Francisco’s Mission District. A young man walked past him and asked, “Hey, what’s up, man?” The young man then, without warning, hit Miranda on the back of the head. Miranda fell to the ground and the assailant continued to hit him. The assailant then held Miranda down and demanded that Miranda give up his property; Miranda handed over his wallet. As Miranda fell to the ground, he saw other people running toward him from across the street. They surrounded Miranda as he lay on the ground; one of them was appellant. Appellant stood about a foot away from Miranda. Appellant did not hit Miranda or say anything during the robbery.2 Appellant stood next to Miranda for 10 or 15 seconds, during which another person pulled out a knife and demanded more property from Miranda. Miranda handed over his cell phone and everyone but Miranda ran away. Later that evening, a San Francisco police officer detained appellant, who was in the presence of other juveniles. The officer saw appellant drop something to the ground, which turned out to be Miranda’s cell phone. DISCUSSION Appellant contends insufficient evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding he aided and abetted the robbery of Miranda. When evaluating the sufficiency of the