In re L.N. CA2/6

Filed 7/20/23 In re L.N. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 L.N., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B322094 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. YJ40799) (Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.N.,

Defendant and Appellant.

L.N. appeals after the juvenile court sustained an allegation that he committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) with several accomplices. He contends there was insufficient evidence to identify him as one of the perpetrators of the robbery. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In December 2021, while investigating a drive-by shooting, Los Angeles police officer Simon Beal learned that a robbery had

been committed at a nearby shoe store. Officer Beal watched surveillance footage, which showed seven perpetrators leaving the store with stolen items. Some of the perpetrators knocked an employee down as they fled. Officer Beal identified L.N. as one of the shoe store robbers, and Angel Torres as another. He recognized the two as members of a criminal street gang. Officer Beal believed L.N. was one of only three or four Hispanic members of the 50-person gang, about half of whom he could identify. Every time Officer Beal had seen L.N. he was with other gang members. L.N. wore a mask covering the lower half of his face during the robbery. Officer Beal was nevertheless able to identify him based on what he could see of L.N.’s face, his “distinctive style of walking,” and his “limp” gait. L.N. also had a slender build and “very pale[,] very light” complexion. He was taller and thinner than the other Hispanic gang members. After watching the surveillance footage, Officer Beal learned that L.N. was wanted in conjunction with the shoe store robbery. He arrested L.N. two months later in a “stronghold” of his neighborhood gang. Prosecutors played the surveillance footage at the jurisdictional hearing. The juvenile court watched the footage and noted that it showed “something” on L.N.’s left hand. L.N.’s left hand has “distinctive tattoos.” DISCUSSION L.N. contends we should vacate the finding that he robbed the shoe store because there was insufficient evidence that he was one of the robbery’s perpetrators. We disagree. “An essential element of any crime is . . . that the [accused] is the person who committed the offense.” (People v. Hogue