In re I.C. CA2/4

Filed 4/20/15 In re I.C. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 I.C., a Person Coming Under the B254988 Juvenile Court Law. ___________________________________ (Los Angeles County THE PEOPLE, Super. Ct. No. TJ20495)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

I.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Catherine J. Pratt, Commissioner. Affirmed. Bruce G. Finebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Blythe J. Leszkay and Nathan Guttman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________

Minor I.C. appeals from the juvenile court’s adjudication and disposition orders on a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition, alleging appellant committed robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). He argues the robbery finding is not supported by substantial evidence since the court did not credit the victim’s testimony that appellant took away his cell phone at gun point. We conclude that other evidence supports the robbery finding and affirm the orders.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY On December 3, 2013, the victim, Arthur Stephen, was talking to his mother on his cell phone while walking down the street, when appellant pulled up from behind him on a bicycle. Appellant was 16 years old, while Stephen was 28 years old, but appellant admittedly knew Stephen was “kind of special.” When he saw appellant, Stephen hurried to hang up the phone and put it in his jacket pocket. Appellant asked if Stephen had a phone or if appellant could use his phone. Stephen did not answer because he was “so shocked to see” appellant, and he did not allow appellant to use the phone. At the adjudication hearing, Stephen testified appellant “started checking my pockets to see what I had,” “patted” the pocket, “went into” it, “and took the phone.” Stephen denied having told a police officer that he took out the phone by himself, or that appellant had threatened to shoot him. Stephen variously testified that appellant pulled out a “small silver gun” when Stephen asked for his phone back, or after Stephen refused to let him use the phone. Stephen also testified he was scared before he saw the gun, and that it “looked like” appellant had a gun “bulging in his pocket.” Appellant tried to make a call, but could not because the phone was locked and Stephen refused to give him the passcode. Appellant then rode away on his bicycle without returning the phone. Stephen told his mother that his phone had been stolen, tried calling appellant on the phone in the hope he would bring it back, and reported it stolen five days later. At the adjudication hearing, Officer Han testified that on December 8, 2013, Stephen reported appellant had startled him by pulling up on his bicycle; had initially