Opinion
A149798
11-14-2017
In re D.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.D., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. J43569)
Thirteen-year-old D.D. was declared a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 based on an allegation that he had committed a robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The juvenile court sustained the petition based on the testimony of the victim of the robbery and the police officers who apprehended D.D. within minutes after the robbery. D.D.'s appellate lawyer filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have reviewed the record and, finding no issues upon which we require briefing, affirm the juvenile court's findings and orders.
I. BACKGROUND
A. The People's Case
On August 8, 2016, at about 7:20 in the evening, two men approached Brittney M. as she was getting into her car near Yo Sushi in the Glen Cove shopping center in Vallejo. One man grabbed her from behind and put her in a bear hug while simultaneously trying to take away her cell phone. He also punched her in the neck, face, back and side, but was unsuccessful in getting her phone away from her. While struggling with that man, Brittney M. turned and could see two men were involved. Suddenly, the second man ripped her purse off her neck.
Both men took off running with the purse. They jumped over a railing and ran down an embankment. Brittney M. ran to the railing, looked straight down and saw the men in front of her, then she looked to the right and watched them run until she lost sight of them.
Brittney M. saw the men for a total of 20 seconds before losing sight of them. About 10 to 20 seconds later, Brittney M. saw two other youths wearing white shirts and jeans walk by, and they asked her what happened. She told them she had been robbed. Then, about 10 seconds later, two Vallejo police officers arrived.
The two police officers had been eating dinner at Yo Sushi when a citizen approached and told them about the crime committed outside the restaurant and said the robbers were running toward Glen Cove Parkway. Both officers went outside to talk to the robbery victim. Brittney M. briefly described for them what had happened and what the robbers looked like. She said they were two black male juveniles, one wearing a white T-shirt, accompanied by a taller black male. She pointed out the direction in which they had run. Although she could not describe facial features of the suspects, she insisted at the contested hearing that both faces were "engrained in [her] brain."
Based on Brittney M.'s information, one of the officers, Corporal Robert Herndon, drove down Glen Cove Parkway and turned onto Lewis Road, where, within a minute or two after leaving Brittney M., he saw two youths who fit the description Brittney M. had given, later identified as D.D. and Isaiah Owens, age 18. One was wearing a white T-shirt and shorts. He radioed to the other officer to ask Brittney M. if one of the suspects had been wearing shorts, and she affirmed that was true. Herndon then asked the other officer to bring Brittney M. to the detention site for an in-field show-up. About two to four minutes after D.D. and Owens were detained, Brittney M. identified them as the men who took her purse.
Brittney M.'s purse was found in a front yard on Lewis Road between the area where the robbery occurred and where D.D. and Owens were stopped by the police. The items in the purse were strewn about on the ground near the purse, which was about 30 to 50 feet from where the young men were detained.
Brittney M. identified D.D. at the contested jurisdictional hearing as the person who ripped her purse off her neck, claiming she remembered his face "clearly." She described one of the men as wearing a gray sweatshirt with red strings coming down from the neck or shoulder area, but she could not remember which assailant was wearing which outfit. That description matched what D.D. was wearing. Brittney M. was "positive" that D.D. and Owens robbed her, not the other two youths who walked by her after the robbery.
B. Defense Case
D.D. presented a defense of mistaken identity. He claimed he and Owens were the two youths who passed by Brittney M. after the robbery and testified his 16-year-old cousin, D.F., and an older friend, 19-year-old Rashad (last name unknown) were the actual robbers. He testified that earlier on the day of the robbery, he and Owens had been playing basketball with D.F. and Rashad at an elementary school near his house. After playing basketball, the four friends decided to walk to Safeway at the Glen Cove shopping center. About ten minutes after they got to the shopping center, they split up because D.D. and Owens decided to go to Subway to get a snack, while D.F. and Rashad went to Safeway.
When they came out of Subway, D.D. and Owens saw D.F. and Rashad running across the Safeway parking lot toward Brittney M. Then D.D. saw Rashad grab Brittney M. from behind and saw his cousin, D.F., grab her purse. D.F. and Rashad then jumped over the railing. D.D. and Owens were about 20 feet away from where the robbery took place.
After the robbery, D.D. and Owens walked past Brittney M., and Owens asked her what happened. Brittney M. told the boys she had been robbed and asked if they had seen the young men who robbed her. Owens told her "no," and they continued to walk home. Shortly, a police car pulled over, stopped D.D. and Owens, and the officer told them to get on the ground.
C. Proceedings in Juvenile Court
On August 9, 2016, the district attorney filed a wardship petition alleging appellant committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) with notice that the charged offense was a serious and a violent felony (Pen. Code, §§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(19); 667.5, subd. (c)(9)).
On September 30, 2016, a contested jurisdictional hearing was held along with D.D.'s motion to suppress evidence under Welfare and Institutions Code section 700.1. The suppression motion was based on the argument that the detention was without a warrant and was not supported by reasonable suspicion. The juvenile court denied D.D.'s suppression motion and sustained the robbery allegation.
At the disposition hearing held on October 17, 2016, the juvenile court declared D.D. a ward of the court and placed him on probation in his mother's home with various terms and conditions. D.D. filed a timely notice of appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
D.D.'s appellate lawyer filed a brief under People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, asking us to review the entire record to determine whether there are any meritorious issues to be briefed. We have reviewed the whole record, including the motion to suppress, and we find no issues that would merit further briefing. D.D. moved to suppress any evidence discovered as a result of what D.D. claimed was an illegal, warrantless detention. The detention was not illegal because it was based on reasonable suspicion. (In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, 893-894.) D.D. and Owens matched the description of the two robbers as to age, race, relative heights, and clothing. They were located in the proximity of the robbery within minutes of the crime. The detention was brief and was terminated with an arrest after the victim identified them as the robbers. (See In re Rafael V. (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 977, 981-982.)
An in-field show-up was properly conducted. (People v. Craig (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 905, 911-912; People v. Anthony (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 751, 764-765.) There was no pre-arrest transportation of D.D. and Owens; the robbery victim was transported to where the two youths had been detained. (Cf. People v. Harris (1975) 15 Cal.3d 384, 389-390; In re Dung T. (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 697, 704.)
The stolen purse and missing items from inside it were found strewn about between the location of the robbery and the location where D.D. and Owens were detained, about 30 to 50 feet away from the detainees. The evidence, including the victim's eyewitness identification, which the juvenile court found credible, was sufficient to support the true finding on the robbery allegation. (Evid. Code, § 411; People v. King (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 551, 555.)
III. DISPOSITION
The jurisdictional and dispositional orders are affirmed.
/s/_________
Streeter, J. We concur: /s/_________
Ruvolo, P.J. /s/_________
Rivera, J.