In re L.C. CA2/8

Filed 4/26/16 In re L.C. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re L.C., a Person Coming Under the B265087 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NJ28073)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John C. Lawson II, Judge. 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, Margaret E. Maxwell and Thomas C. Hsieh, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

In this juvenile delinquency case, the court sustained a petition alleging robbery against appellant L.C. Appellant asserts the court committed prejudicial error when it denied him a second continuance to secure a witness’s attendance. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1. Petition The Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a petition under section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code alleging appellant, then 15 years old, committed robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) by taking personal property from Therin M. The petition identified companion cases against David J. and Jaylen J. The prosecutor moved to dismiss the petition against Jaylen on March 20, 2015 because he “no longer ha[d] confidence [in] the prosecution of Jaylen.” Recent statements of the victim indicated Jaylen was not involved with the alleged robbery. The court granted the motion to dismiss as to Jaylen. Defense counsel gave Jaylen a subpoena to testify at appellant’s adjudication hearing, and the court placed Jaylen on call to appellant’s counsel for the date of the adjudication hearing, April 10, 2015. 2. Adjudication Hearing On August 15, 2014, Therin wore a gold chain to school that was a gift from his parents. It was a rather large chain; each link was approximately a half-inch long. Therin went to a campus restroom and encountered David and appellant there. David asked him if the chain was real, and Therin replied “yes.” Therin was washing his hands when appellant approached him from behind, restrained Therin’s arms, and held his neck. David took the chain from Therin’s neck as appellant restrained Therin. David ran out of the bathroom and appellant released Therin approximately five seconds later. Therin chased after David. Therin told David, “I don’t want to fight with you, but I want my chain back.” Therin took out his phone and told David he was going to call for help, and David said, “Don’t make me take your phone.” Therin spoke with Los Angeles School District Police Officer Hilda Galindo later that day. He told Officer Galindo a fourth boy, Jaylen, was in the bathroom as well when the chain was taken from him. Jaylen was using the urinal, but he was not involved in the