In re M.D. CA1/3

Filed 5/2/13 In re M.D. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

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

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A135883 v. (Alameda County M.D., Super. Ct. No. SJ10154292) Defendant and Appellant.

Sixteen-year-old M.D. (the minor) appeals from juvenile court orders finding that he committed felony robbery and placing him on probation. He contends that there is no evidence of force to support the robbery finding and that certain terms of his probation incorporated in the judgment differ from those imposed by the court and are unconstitutional, unreasonable, or vague. We affirm the robbery finding but agree, as does the Attorney General, that the challenged probation conditions must be modified to conform to the juvenile court’s oral pronouncements. Factual and Procedural History In 2009, the minor ran away from his home in South Carolina and came to California. In August 2010, a petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that the minor committed felony grand theft (Pen. Code,1 § 487, subd. (a)), exhibited a deadly weapon, a knife (§ 417, subd. (a)(1)), and committed felony 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.

1

assault (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). In September 2010, the petition was dismissed on condition that the minor return to South Carolina. In January 2012, the minor returned to California. On April 26, 2012, a “reopened” wardship petition was filed alleging that the minor committed robbery (§ 211), used force against a peace officer engaged in the performance of his duties (§ 243, subd. (b)), and resisted arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)). The following evidence was presented at the contested jurisdictional hearing: About midnight on April 24, 2012, the victim was on her way home from work. She had a backpack on her back with both straps over her shoulders. As she waited for a street light to change, the minor approached and grabbed her arm, and asked her in an “angry” tone of voice, “Do you want to be my friend.” The victim pulled away from his grasp and said, “leave me alone.” She “was afraid.” As the victim started to walk away, the minor followed her. The victim felt “[a] lot” of force when the minor pulled on her bag. One of the straps on the backpack broke when the minor pulled it from the victim. The victim tried to hold onto the broken strap, but the minor pulled it away. The victim explained that she “tried to hold on to it” but she could not “get a grip on the strap” because the minor was “very fast.” Her finger was scratched when the strap “went through her hand.” After the minor ran away with her backpack, the victim called the police. The minor did not present any evidence in his defense. At the conclusion of the hearing, the minor’s counsel moved to dismiss the robbery charge on the ground that the element of force had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the evidence was sufficient only to support a finding of grand theft. The court denied the motion and sustained the petition on all three counts. At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court dismissed all but the robbery charge, declared the minor a ward, and found his maximum term of confinement to be five years, four months. The court placed the minor on probation subject to various conditions and ordered the case transferred to South Carolina. The minor filed timely notice of appeal.