People v. J.L. (In re J.L.)
| Decision Date | 07 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | H047290 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re J.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.L., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Monterey County Super. Ct. No. 19JV000114)
After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained three charges against appellant J.L., a minor, for kidnapping to commit robbery, robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon. The juvenile court declared J.L. a ward of the court, placed him in the custody of his probation officer, and committed him to the county youth center program for a year. The juvenile court ordered probation supervision with multiple conditions, including an electronics search condition, until J.L.'s 23d birthday.
On appeal, J.L. raises several claims of error. As to the juvenile court's jurisdictional determination, J.L. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court's finding on the aggravated kidnapping charge. As to the dispositional order, J.L. claims the juvenile court erred by failing to apply Penal Code section 654, failing to declare whether the assault with a deadly weapon charge was a felony or a misdemeanor, failing to set his maximum custody time, placing him on probation beyond his 21st birthday, and imposing an invalid electronics search condition. In addition, J.L. contends his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the electronics search condition. The Attorney General agrees with J.L. on some of his claims regarding the disposition.
For reasons that we will explain, we reject J.L.'s sufficiency of the evidence claims and affirm the juvenile court's jurisdictional order. We reverse the dispositional order and remand the matter to the juvenile court with directions.
On January 29, 2019,1 the Monterey County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition (petition) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), alleging that J.L. committed kidnapping to commit robbery (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (b)(1)2; count 1), attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a); count 2), robbery (§ 211; count 3), and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 4). The petition identified the victim as "John Doe" and alleged the assault with a deadly weapon charge as a felony. The alleged crimes involved J.L. and two juvenile accomplices, J.Q., and A.J.
The juvenile court held a contested jurisdictional hearing on J.L.'s petition in July 2019.3 On July 31, the court found true the charges of kidnapping to commit robbery(count 1), robbery (count 3), and assault with a deadly weapon (count 4). The court found not true the attempted murder charge and dismissed it. In addition, the court found J.L. to be described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The juvenile court did not on the record mention at the jurisdictional hearing whether it had considered designating count 4 as a felony or a misdemeanor.
At a dispositional hearing on August 14, the juvenile court declared J.L. a ward of the court, placed him "in the custody of [his] probation officer for [] 566 days," with 201 days of credit for time served and 365 days to be served in the Monterey County Probation Department Youth Center Program, and ordered wardship and probation supervision with conditions until the day J.L. turns 23 years old. The court orally "confirm[ed]" at the dispositional hearing that it had previously "sustained a finding as true as to . . . Count 4, a felony." Further, in the written dispositional order, a box is checked next to a preprinted finding regarding the sustained charges that states, Below that statement, there is a list including the three sustained counts which indicates that they are felonies, mirroring the charges in the petition. The juvenile court, however, did not on the record mention at the dispositional hearing a specific determination of the offense status for count 4.
At 7:50 p.m. on January 26, John Doe walked out of his apartment in Salinas and was attacked by J.L. and two other teens. J.L. and one of his accomplices initiated the attack by grabbing Doe near the apartment complex's parking lot while the thirdaccomplice acted as a lookout. When Doe asked his attackers why they were attacking him, they told him to "shut up" and "be quiet." J.L. and his accomplices then moved Doe from the parking lot area down a path to a dark area that "wasn't very illuminated by the apartment." According to a Salinas Police Department officer, the distance between where Doe was first accosted to where he was moved measured over 50 feet. Doe was afraid. He neither knew the attackers nor resisted them.
When they got to the dark area, J.L. and his accomplices hit Doe. After beating and throwing Doe to the ground, the attackers took Doe's wallet, cellphone, and car keys from his pocket. A "girl came out" and the attackers kicked Doe. One of the attackers (not J.L.) stabbed Doe on the right side of his rib cage while he was on the ground. Afraid he was going to be killed, Doe tried to grab the knife as the attacker attempted to stab him again. The knife cut Doe's hand.
M.R. lived in the apartment complex and observed about eight to 10 seconds of the attack from 15 feet away, through her bedroom window.4 M.R. heard noises outside her window, looked out, and saw three teens and a man on the ground. According to M.R., there were "[s]ort of" some lights on in the area of the attack; it was not completely dark. The teens punched and kicked the man, whom M.R. recognized as a neighbor. M.R. also recognized from school the three teen attackers, J.L., J.Q., and A.J. J.L. kicked and punched Doe during the attack, and J.Q. stabbed Doe with a pocketknife. M.R. told the attackers to stop and leave Doe alone. The attackers stopped hitting Doe and ran away. Later, the police took M.R. to view some individuals. M.R. identified J.L. as one of the attackers. He had on the same clothes that he had been wearing during the attack.
On the night of the crime, a police officer with the Salinas Police Department responded to a call about a possible robbery and stabbing involving multiple juvenile suspects. Within about five minutes of the dispatch, the officer observed a possiblesuspect matching a description provided by the dispatcher. The officer stopped the suspect (identified in court as J.Q.) and saw two fresh-looking small cuts on the suspect's hand and dried blood on his sweatshirt. The officer searched J.Q. and found a wallet with a bank card bearing Doe's name and a cellphone. Thereafter, the officer saw three individuals jump over a nearby fence. Other officers gave chase and apprehended two of the individuals.
When another police officer spoke to Doe immediately after the crime, Doe was bleeding, scared, and somewhat in shock. Doe told the officer that he had been robbed at knifepoint and his car keys, wallet, and cellphone had been taken. Doe said the three assailants were teenaged Hispanic males and described their clothing. The officer also spoke to M.R., who provided A.J.'s name to the officer.5 Police went to A.J.'s nearby residence and observed multiple people inside and some jumping over fences around the residence. J.L. was apprehended in the area. He possessed a pocketknife with what appeared to be blood on its blade and Doe's car keys.
J.L. was the sole defense witness. J.L. testified that on the day of the crime he went to a barbeque at a friend's house. J.Q. and A.J. were there. J.L. saw some people step away from the barbeque for about 10 to 15 minutes, but he did not do so. When the police arrived at the house, J.L. and others ran away. J.L. ran because he was scared. As J.L. fled, he saw a person who had been at the barbeque drop something. J.L. picked it up because he "thought it was [his] friend's." On cross-examination, J.L. confirmed that he was not on probation at the time of the incident and had his parents' permission to attend the barbeque. J.L. jumped over three fences as he ran from the barbeque, and A.J. was one of the people who fled with him.
J.L. contends: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court's finding on count 1 for aggravated kidnapping; (2) the juvenile court erred by failing to apply section 654 to stay the sentence on count 3 for robbery; (3) the juvenile court erred by failing to expressly declare whether count 4 was a felony or a misdemeanor; (4) the juvenile court erred by failing to set his maximum custody time; (5) the juvenile court exceeded its authority when it placed him on probation until his 23d birthday; (6) the juvenile court imposed an invalid electronics search condition; and (7) defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the electronics search condition on the ground raised in this appeal.
We will first address J.L.'s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and then turn to his claims that oppose the juvenile court's dispositional order. Finally, we will discuss an error in the July 31, 2019 jurisdictional order.
J.L. asserts the evidence was insufficient to support the asportation and intent-to-rob elements of the aggravated kidnapping charge in count 1. Speci...
To continue reading
Request your trial