In re Jerome G. CA2/4

Filed 6/19/13 In re Jerome G. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re JEROME G., a Person Coming B240407 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County THE PEOPLE, Super. Ct. No. JJ18773)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JEROME G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Donna Quigley Groman, Judge. Affirmed. Susan L. Ferguson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne and Colleen M. Tiedemann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________________

Appellant Jerome G. appeals from an order sustaining a petition under Welfare 1 and Institutions Code section 602 and placing him home on probation. He contends the victim’s identification of him was the result of an unconstitutionally suggestive procedure, and should not have been admitted at trial. In the absence of other evidence connecting him to the crime, he claims the error was prejudicial and the order should be reversed. We find no error and affirm the court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY In November 2011, Guadalupe Reyes was in front of her apartment building, feeding some birds. As she was going back into her apartment, an African American male came toward her. She moved over a little so he could pass. As he passed, he grabbed a gold chain from around her neck. Ms. Reyes held onto the chain, but it broke, leaving her with a small piece in her hand. The man also took an earring from Ms. Reyes’s ear. Los Angeles Police Officer Manuel Castaneda was one of the officers assigned to this case. During his investigation, he reviewed video evidence which showed Ms. Reyes being attacked. About a week after the incident, he went to Ms. Reyes’s apartment and drove her to the Southeast Police Station for a field identification. Appellant, then 17 years old, was standing outside the east door of the station. He was handcuffed. According to Officer Castaneda, Ms. Reyes looked out of the car window and said, in Spanish, “It’s him. It’s him. It’s him.” Then she ducked down and hid behind the driver’s seat of the car. A petition was filed alleging that appellant came within the provisions of section 602 based on his commission of a second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. At the adjudication hearing, Ms. Reyes testified that when the officers came to her apartment, they told her they had arrested a person who might have attacked her, and they wanted her to make an identification. The officers told her they had recovered a video depicting the attack, but she did not watch the video. She said she identified 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted. 2