In re O.V. CA3
Filed 4/4/23 In re O.V. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----
In re O.V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C095935 Law.
THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JJC-JV-DE- 2022-0000008) Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
O.V.,
Defendant and Appellant.
O.V. (the minor) appeals a dispositional order after the juvenile court sustained allegations that the minor had committed second degree robberies. The minor contends (1) there is insufficient evidence that he participated in the robberies, and (2) a probation
1
condition requiring the minor to submit to photographing as directed by any probation officer or police officer is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Finding no merit in the contentions, we will affirm the dispositional order. BACKGROUND A Monterey County District Attorney’s wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleged that the minor committed three counts of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211) At the jurisdictional hearing, the People called Danny Hamilton, a security officer. At approximately 4:40 p.m., Hamilton was in a walkway between the watch and jewelry retail stores he guarded in Carmel. He heard a loud noise and went to investigate. He heard a second boom and the sound of breaking glass. Hamilton saw three people dressed in dark clothing and masks running from the watch store. Hamilton yelled for them to stop and pursued them. He saw them enter a black SUV driven by a fourth person, which sped away. The SUV was missing license plates and had tinted windows. In the store, Hamilton observed broken showcases. Two sledgehammers were left behind. Carrie A., Audrey H., and Keira C. had been inside the store and saw people in black with masks, hoods, and gloves smashing showcases and trying to get items out of them. Carrie A. ran to get Mr. Hamilton, who she met in the doorway and then continued to the other store to warn them. Audrey H. and Keira C. were in the vault. They heard loud noises and saw, on the surveillance feed, three people sledgehammering showcases. Videos showing the robbers entering the store, smashing the showcases, attempting to remove items, and depicting the damage were admitted into evidence. Brandon O. was in a car at a stop sign when he saw three people in dark clothing, masks, and carrying sledgehammers run into a store. Brandon jumped out of the car and called 911. He then saw the individuals exit the store and enter a 2016 to 2020 “dark black Toyota Highlander with blacked-out windows” that was missing plates and was
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)