1

Filed 5/27/14 In re Cory I. CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re CORY I., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CORY I.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A139423

(San Francisco County

Super. Ct. No. JW136243)

The juvenile court found Cory I. aided and abetted a robbery and placed him on 

probation with various terms and conditions. On appeal, he contends insufficient 

evidence supported the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A June 2013 Welfare and Institutions Code, section 602, subdivision (a) petition 

alleged appellant committed robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)),1 assault with 

a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), battery (§ 243, subd. (d)), receiving stolen 

property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor destruction of evidence (§ 135). The 

petition included great bodily injury allegations (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) attached to the 

robbery, assault, and battery counts.

 

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found the robbery 

count true and found the other four counts not true. The court found the great bodily 

injury allegation attached to the robbery count not true. Subsequently, the court declared 

appellant a ward of the court, placed him on probation in his mother’s home, and 

imposed various conditions. This appeal followed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Around 11:00 p.m. on June 4, 2013, the victim, Andy Miranda, was walking home 

from work through San Francisco’s Mission District. A young man walked past him and 

asked, “Hey, what’s up, man?” The young man then, without warning, hit Miranda on 

the back of the head.

Miranda fell to the ground and the assailant continued to hit him. The assailant 

then held Miranda down and demanded that Miranda give up his property; Miranda 

handed over his wallet. As Miranda fell to the ground, he saw other people running 

toward him from across the street. They surrounded Miranda as he lay on the ground; 

one of them was appellant. Appellant stood about a foot away from Miranda. Appellant 

did not hit Miranda or say anything during the robbery.2

Appellant stood next to Miranda for 10 or 15 seconds, during which another 

person pulled out a knife and demanded more property from Miranda. Miranda handed 

over his cell phone and everyone but Miranda ran away.

Later that evening, a San Francisco police officer detained appellant, who was in 

the presence of other juveniles. The officer saw appellant drop something to the ground, 

which turned out to be Miranda’s cell phone. 

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends insufficient evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding he 

aided and abetted the robbery of Miranda. When evaluating the sufficiency of the 

 

2 On appeal, the parties dispute whether Miranda testified that he was hit while 

appellant was standing next to him. Because it is clear appellant was present when 

Miranda’s cell phone was taken from him, that dispute is not material to the issue on

appeal.
3

evidence, we consider “ ‘whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential 

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.] An appellate court ‘must 

review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine 

whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, 

and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty 

beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citations.]” (In re Ryan N. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1359, 

1371.)

Robbery is defined as “the felonious taking of personal property in the possession 

of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by 

means of force or fear.” (§ 211.) “A person aids and abets the commission of a crime 

when he or she, (i) with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator, (ii) and 

with the intent or purpose of committing, facilitating or encouraging commission of the 

crime, (iii) by act or advice, aids, promotes, encourages or instigates the commission of 

the crime.” (People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1158, 1164.)

Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to prove he aided and abetted the 

robbery, because the evidence showed only his “mere presence” at the scene of the 

robbery. Although a person’s presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient by itself to 

sustain a conviction of the person as an aider and abettor (People v. Campbell (1994) 25 

Cal.App.4th 402, 409 (Campbell); People v. Miranda (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 398, 407), 

the evidence in the present case showed more than appellant’s mere presence.

In particular, the evidence showed appellant acted in concert with other persons in 

surrounding Miranda after he was knocked to the ground. (See Campbell, supra, 25 

Cal.App.4th at p. 409.) The juvenile court could reasonably infer that appellant’s 

conduct in approaching and participating in surrounding Miranda after he was knocked to 

the ground showed appellant had knowledge of the plan to rob Miranda. (Ibid.) The 

court could further infer that appellant’s participation in surrounding Miranda while 

Miranda’s phone was taken away showed that appellant intended to aid that taking, and 

that appellant’s conduct actually aided the robbery by intimidating Miranda and blocking 
4

any escape. (Ibid. [“Since there is no evidence [the defendant] was surprised by [the 

active assailant’s] conduct or afraid to interfere with it, the jury could reasonably 

conclude that [the defendant] assumed his position in front of [the victims] to intimidate 

and block them, divert suspicion, and watch out for others who might approach. Such 

conduct is a textbook example of aiding and abetting”]; see also, e.g., In re Juan G.

(2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1, 5.) Appellant’s flight with the other assailants, and his 

discovery with Miranda’s cell phone are further evidence supporting the juvenile court’s 

finding. (Campbell, at p. 410; see also, e.g., People v. Garcia (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 

261, 274; Juan G., at p. 5.) Appellant’s various arguments to the contrary are without 

merit.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.

SIMONS, J.

We concur.

JONES, P.J.

NEEDHAM, J.