In re D.J. CA1/2

Filed 9/25/14 In re D.J. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re D.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.J., A140053 Defendant and Appellant. (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 81841)

I. INTRODUCTION Following a contested hearing, appellant D.J. was continued as a ward of the court1 for committing one count of robbery and one count of attempted robbery, and was ordered removed from his parents’ custody. He appeals, claiming that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the attempted robbery adjudication and that the juvenile court erred in not stating a maximum period of confinement. We conclude the record contains substantial evidence supporting the attempted robbery adjudication. We will, however, remand for the limited purposed of allowing the juvenile court to specify a maximum

1 Previously, the San Mateo Superior Court had adjudged appellant to be a ward of the court after sustaining an allegation of petty theft (Pen. Code, § 484), a misdemeanor, on December 29, 2011. The court sustained a second allegation of petty theft (Pen. Code, § 484) on October 10, 2012.

1

term of confinement. The jurisdictional and dispositional orders are affirmed in all other respects. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 5, 2013,2 then 17-year-old D.J. participated in a series of events that led to multiple robbery related charges. However, appellant only challenges the true finding as to one count of attempted robbery, so our recitation of the facts will focus primarily on the events pertinent to that charge. On the evening of March 4, appellant’s cousin and another man picked up appellant in a stolen BMW. Shortly before 4:00 a.m. the following morning, Lolita Abecilla and her neighbor, Andres De La Cruz, were walking down Geneva Street in San Francisco towards the Balboa Park BART station. De La Cruz was walking about three feet in front of Abecilla. It was very dark. As they walked, De La Cruz noticed an unidentified number of people sitting in a car parked in a driveway. After they passed the parked car, De La Cruz heard footsteps approaching them from behind. A man ran up to Abecilla and grabbed her purse off her arm. She could not see the assailant in the darkness but could tell it was a man when he moved away from her. De La Cruz turned and saw Abecilla struggling momentarily. Her right shoulder was injured when the bag was pulled away. De La Cruz testified that he then heard a gun. After the man snatched the handbag, he “clicked the gun, like a shotgun, twice, clicking, and then after that, he asked us, ‘Give me your phone,’ and then after that, ‘If you call the police, I will shoot you.’ ” Abecilla testified that, immediately after her purse was taken, she tried to call 911 on her cell phone. The man who took her purse warned her that if she called the police, “ ‘I’m going to shoot you.’ ” The assailant then ran with Abecilla’s purse back towards the parked car. There was another person standing by the car. The man who took the purse and the other person standing by the car got into the car together and drove away.