In re D.S. CA1/1

Filed 1/15/16 In re D.S. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re D.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, A144081

Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Francisco City & County v. Super. Ct. No. JW 14-6270) D.S., Defendant and Appellant.

The juvenile court found appellant D.S., a minor, committed second degree robbery and felony false imprisonment. Appellant now argues there was insufficient evidence to prove he was involved with these crimes. Appellant also challenges his sentence, arguing the case should be remanded with instructions to specify the maximum term of confinement and award him credits for time served. We conclude the juvenile court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, but remand for the limited purpose of calculating appellant’s maximum term of confinement and credits. I. BACKGROUND On September 23, 2014, the San Francisco District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition against appellant pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 602, subdivision (a). The petition alleged appellant committed (1) attempted

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.

second degree robbery by trying to take a laptop from Patrick Nevels (Pen. Code, §§ 664/212.5, subd, (c); count 1) and (2) second degree robbery by taking a cell phone from Nevels (id., §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c); count 2). The petition lists J.W. and J.T as cominors. The petition was later amended to add a third count for felony kidnapping (id., § 209, subd. (b)(1); count 3), to add Z.C. as an additional cominor, and to amend count 1 to charge appellant with attempted second degree robbery of both a laptop and a backpack. Nevels testified as follows. On September 21, 2014, about 8:50 p.m., he was walking near the 900 block of Market Street in San Francisco. Someone placed a gun against the back of his head and demanded his iPhone. Nevels saw three assailants. One of them reached into Nevels’s pocket and took the phone. Two of the assailants demanded Nevels’s backpack, which contained a laptop. When he refused to turn over the backpack, one of the assailants tried to unzip it. Nevels walked away and an assailant behind him continued to hold the backpack. Nevels then tried to negotiate, offering to withdraw cash from an ATM and give it to the assailants instead of the backpack. The assailants agreed. As they walked up Market Street to find an ATM, one of the assailants said, “do you want to die” and “do you want me to shoot you in the mouth.” The assailant pistol-whipped Nevels, at which point he realized the gun was fake. Nevels ran into the street, dragging one of the assailants with him. He waived down a police officer, and said “these three people . . . just mugged me.” The officer then “just pulled right up and arrested the three of them.” At the jurisdiction hearing, Nevels was shown pictures of appellant, J.T., and J.W., which were taken after their arrest. Appellant is shown wearing a North Face jacket, dark pants, and light shoes. Nevels recognized appellant and J.T. as two of the persons who had been arrested by the officer, but he did not recognize them from the incident. He recognized J.W. from both the arrest and the incident, stating J.W. was the one who had held onto his backpack and threatened him with the fake gun. Several surveillance videos were also admitted into evidence. The videos show two assailants confronting Nevels, as one of them points something at Nevels’s head and