In re R.C.

Filed 10/21/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re R.C., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B293846 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. 2018028124) (Ventura County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

An attempt to commit armed robbery is extremely dangerous. Appellant is lucky he was not shot to death by the store clerk who resisted his attempt to commit this offense. He would not have been the first attempted robbery culprit to meet this fate. He appeals from the judgment entered after the juvenile court sustained a juvenile delinquency petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) for assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664/221). The juvenile

court placed appellant on probation with electronic monitoring and ordered restitution. We affirm. Facts and Procedural History At 4:00 a.m. in the morning of August 14, 2018, 14-year-old appellant and 15-year-old E.B. entered a 7-11 store to commit an armed robbery. A lookout was posted outside the store. Appellant wore a black hoodie and ski mask, and brandished a black metal BB pistol. E.B. wielded a silver metal BB pistol. Appellant “slammed” a bag on the counter and ordered the clerk to put the money in the bag. The clerk resisted, wrestling the BB gun from appellant. E.B. intervened and pistol-whipped the clerk allowing them to flee. The crimes were filmed on the store surveillance video. At the adjudication hearing, appellant admitted that he brandished the BB gun to scare the clerk “into putting the money into the bag.” He claimed E.B.’s assault on the clerk was unintended. His attorney argued that “the aiding and abetting standard should . . . be revised for juveniles to . . . recognize[] the developmental differences between the adult brain and the adolescent brain.” This theory was/is based upon a law review article, “Kids Will be Kids: Time for a ‘Reasonable Child’ Standard for the Proof of Objective Mens Rea Elements.” (Northop & Rozen, 69 Me. L.Rev. 109 (2017).) The fair import of this law review article is as follows: “Based on the goals of the juvenile system, significant advances in adolescent development research and recent Supreme Court holdings on juvenile culpability, we argue here that the juvenile code should be amended to explicitly refer to a reasonable child standard for any mens rea element that relies on a reasonable person as the measure for criminal culpability.” (Id. at p. 112, italics omitted.)