In re C.B. CA2/6

Filed 2/25/21 In re C.B. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re C.B., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B305029 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. PJ53189) (Los Angeles County) THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.B., Defendant and Appellant.

C.B. appeals the wardship order (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) entered after the trial court sustained a petition for 1 attempted second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 664/211.) At the disposition hearing, appellant admitted three prior petitions (dated March 28, 2019, October 1, 2019, and October 22, 2019) for robbery and attempted second degree robbery (§§ 211; 664/211), grand theft from the person of another (§ 487, subd. (c)), and

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

receiving stolen property exceeding $900 in value (§ 496, subd. (a)). The trial court declared the current offense (attempted second degree robbery) a felony, found the maximum confinement period was seven years eight months, and ordered appellant to be home on probation. We affirm. Appellant and his brother confronted M.H. by a bus stop, demanded money, and blocked her path as she tried to walk away. They pushed and shoved her as appellant tried to take her fanny pack. M.H. broke away and ran but was shot in the back with a BB gun. During the attack, M.H.’s left hand, which was in a wrist brace, was injured. The injury was significant and might require surgery. M.H. called the police and, minutes later, identified appellant and his brother in a field show up. The brother had a BB pellet gun in his pocket and appellant had a folding knife. Sustaining the petition, the trial court found that M.H. was “a particularly vulnerable victim because of her age, her size. She is mildly obese, and she appeared to have . . . little ability to defend herself because of her injury to her left [] hand. [¶] [Appellant and the brother] working together thought she was an easy mark and that she would be easy to get the fanny pack from. [¶] She protected herself and tried to run away.” Force or Fear Appellant claims that insufficient force or fear was used for the robbery. As in any substantial evidence case, all conflicts in the evidence are resolved in favor of the trial court’s findings, and the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment. (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924.) Appellant argues it was a clumsy pickpocket, involving a slight, harmless touching. (People v. Garcia (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1242,