In re Javier L. CA2/1

Filed 5/27/16 In re Javier L. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re JAVIER L., a Person Coming Under B268546 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YJ38450)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAVIER L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Irma J. Brown, Judge. Affirmed. Esther R. Sorkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

A Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition filed October 2, 2015 alleged that on or about July 24, 2015, Javier L., then 17 years old, committed felony second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. The petition also alleged that Javier committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). Javier L. denied the charge. At the November 10, 2015 adjudication hearing, the prosecutor declined to proceed on the gang allegation. Defense counsel made a motion to have the victim, K.D., declared not competent to testify as a witness. K.D. had developmental disabilities and mental health issues. In an open petition in a different case, proceedings had been suspended based on doubts about K.D.’s competency to stand trial. His public defender in that case was present and remained at K.D.’s side during his testimony. The court held a hearing in which K.D. stated he understood that the oath he took in court that day was a promise to tell the truth; that telling the truth meant you did not get into trouble, and telling a lie meant you were in trouble; that saying a white picture was white was true, and saying the white picture was red was a lie; that he had to tell the truth in response to every question in court; and that he would not say something untrue, or say that he remembered something he did not actually remember, to make one side happy. Noting that the standard for finding a defendant competent to stand trial was different, the court found K.D. competent to testify as a witness. K.D. had answered the questions reasonably, understood the difference between the truth and a lie, and would not give an answer just to make someone happy. K.D. testified that he was at a liquor store when he allowed another student at his school, Victor, to borrow K.D.’s cell phone. Although K.D. told Victor to give the cell phone back before Victor left the store, Victor left with the phone. On a later day, K.D. saw Victor and asked him to return the cell phone, and Victor said he would go to K.D.’s house to drop it off, but did not. On the day of the alleged robbery, K.D. saw Victor and Javier L. at the liquor store. K.D. asked for his phone back and Victor said no. Victor told K.D. to get into a van. Two girls were in the front seat, and one of them drove the van to nearby Helen