Filed 6/9/21 P. v. J.B. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F081287

(Super. Ct. No. 15CEJ600281-6)

OPINION

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Mary Dolas, 

Judge.

Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. 

Vasquez, Amanda D. Cary and Jennifer Oleksa, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff 

and Respondent.

-ooOoo-
2.

On April 16, 2019, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship 

petition alleging that J.B., a minor, committed four counts of second degree robbery (Pen. 

Code, § 211 [counts 1–4]).1 As to each count, the petition alleged that he personally used 

a deadly and dangerous weapon in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). 

On December 16, 2019, following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court

found not true the robbery allegation on count 1; found true the robbery allegations on 

counts 2 through 4; and found not true the deadly and dangerous weapon allegations. At 

a May 4, 2020 disposition hearing, the court ordered that J.B. would remain a ward of the 

court and under the supervision of the probation department until November 4, 2021. He 

was committed to the New Horizons program for 365 days.

J.B. makes two contentions on appeal. First, the juvenile court “erred in finding 

[he] was one of the robbers in question ....” (Capitalization omitted.) Second, the court 

“erroneously and prejudicially granted the prosecution’s request for five additional days 

in which to prepare for [the] adjudication.” (Capitalization omitted.) We conclude: 

(1) substantial evidence supported the court’s robbery findings on counts 2 through 4; 

and (2) the purported five-day delay in the adjudication did not result in a miscarriage of 

justice.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. Robbery of Palm Bluffs Liquor (Count 2)

On January 26, 2019, at approximately 10:20 p.m., cashier Harman V. and a 

coworker were stocking items at Palm Bluffs Liquor when two masked males entered the 

store. Harman recalled that one of the culprits “was wearing jeans that were kind of like 

a red color.” Both carried what appeared to be handguns with “silver top[s]” and black 

“bottom[s].” The culprits threatened to shoot the employees and demanded money. 

1 Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent statutory citations refer to the Penal Code.
3.

Harman opened the register and handed over cash and lottery tickets. After the culprits 

left, Harman called 911.

The store’s surveillance cameras recorded the robbery. The footage showed that 

one of the robbers wore a white mask; a “dark colored hoodie”; tan boots “with white 

soles all the way around”; and pants that were “a blueish [sic] color toward the top” and 

“maroon reddish” from “midthigh to below the knees” “with some tears in them in the 

thigh area and knee area.” He also had what appeared to be a semiautomatic handgun 

with a “[s]ilver top slide area” and black “handle portion.” Other footage showed that a 

woman had entered and “looked through all the store” about 10 minutes before the 

robbery.

On January 27, 2019, at approximately 12:30 p.m., some of the stolen lottery 

tickets were scanned at EZ Mart Liquor. At that time, the store’s surveillance camera 

captured a female driver and a male passenger exiting a Honda Civic and entering the 

premises. A license plate search revealed that the vehicle was registered to Michelle 

Sanchez. Law enforcement procured Sanchez’s California Department of Motor 

Vehicles (DMV) photograph and confirmed that she was the same woman seen in Palm 

Bluffs Liquor’s and EZ Mart Liquor’s video recordings. The male passenger was 

identified as G.G., a minor.

On January 31, 2019, after a warrant was obtained, a tracking device was planted 

on Sanchez’s Honda.

II. Robbery of Bullard Avenue 7-Eleven (Count 3)

On February 3, 2019, Christopher V. was working the graveyard shift at the 7-

Eleven located on the corner of Bullard and Palm Avenues. At approximately 4:00 a.m., 

he was making coffee in the back of the store when he “heard some commotion.” 

Christopher, who “thought maybe someone was just looking for the clerk,” “yelled back” 

“to let them know” where he was. To his surprise, three “dark skinned” males in masks 

confronted him. One carried what appeared to be “a longer rifle” and the other two 
4.

carried what appeared to be handguns. They threatened to shoot Christopher “on several 

occasions” and forced him to open the register. The culprits took money, lottery tickets, 

and cigarettes. After they fled, Christopher called 911.

The store’s surveillance cameras recorded the robbery. The footage showed that 

one of the robbers covered his face with a red cloth and wore a “blue Champion jacket,” 

“blue latex gloves,” “some sort of dark pants,” and “tan boots with white soles.” He also 

had what appeared to be “a black and silver semi-auto handgun,” which was “very 

similar” to the one used during the Palm Bluffs Liquor robbery.

At the time of the robbery, data from the tracking device disclosed that Sanchez’s 

Honda was parked on Celeste Avenue, “two streets south” of the 7-Eleven, for about 

“eight minutes and one second.” Later, an officer recovered three unopened cigarette 

packs near this location.

III. Robbery of Shaw Avenue 7-Eleven (Count 4)

On February 3, 2019, Shelby H. was working the graveyard shift at the 7-Eleven 

located on the corner of Shaw and Maroa Avenues. At approximately 4:20 a.m., she was 

in the back of the store when three “dark skinned” males in masks entered the 

establishment. Shelby recalled that one of them wielded “a silver handgun” that “almost 

looked painted,” leading her to believe “it was fake.” Another had “an AK style knock 

off.” At least one of the culprits “had blue gloves on.” As the trio were “moving 

[Shelby] up the aisle,” “the handgun was put on the back of [her] head.” Upon contact, 

“the barrel depressed” and Shelby heard “a plastic noise.” The culprits took money, 

lottery tickets, and tobacco products. After they left, Shelby called 911.

The store’s surveillance cameras recorded the robbery. The footage showed that 

the three males wore the same clothing as the perpetrators who had robbed the Bullard 

Avenue 7-Eleven.
5.

At the time of the robbery, data from the tracking device disclosed that Sanchez’s 

Honda was parked on Maroa Avenue “just south of” Shaw Avenue for “5 minutes and 36 

seconds.” A $5 bill was found in a puddle of water near this location.

Following the robbery, data from the tracking device disclosed that Sanchez’s car 

went to a residence on Grant Avenue. Thereafter, it ended up at a residence on San Pablo 

Avenue. DMV registration records confirmed that Sanchez lived at the San Pablo 

Avenue residence.

IV. Police Surveillance

Detective Xiong of the Fresno Police Department conducted surveillance of the 

Grant Avenue residence starting around noontime on February 3, 2019. He initially 

observed a “dark grey” Ford F-150 parked in front of a Toyota Yaris. Xiong then saw 

two Black women leaving the residence, loading a laundry basket and “a couple 

backpacks” into the Toyota, and entering the car. A male got out of the Ford, conversed 

with the woman sitting in the driver’s seat of the Toyota, and entered the residence. The 

Toyota then drove away. The male came out of the residence and returned to the Ford. 

Afterward, a second male got out of the truck. Xiong testified:

“So I observed a subject walking out into the intersection and just 

the way he was acting was strange. And that obviously caught my 

attention. He walked into the center of the intersection, started looking 

around kind of north/south, in all directions. And then it almost appeared 

like he was looking towards me also.”

Xiong photographed the second male, who was wearing “burgundy colored pants.” He 

later identified this individual as J.B. based on a prior mugshot. Xiong also watched 

Palm Bluffs Liquor’s footage and verified that one of the robbers had worn the same 

unique pants.

Law enforcement records indicated that J.B. lived at the Grant Avenue residence.
6.

V. Arrests and Searches

Warrants were issued for the arrests of Sanchez and J.B. and for the searches of 

their respective dwellings. On February 5, 2019, Sanchez was arrested at the San Pablo 

Avenue residence. Inside her home, officers found her cell phone, a $20 bill, lottery 

tickets, a lottery claim form, tobacco products, airsoft pellets, CO2 cartridges, “packaging 

which appear to belong to airsoft style gun,” and a loaded handgun magazine. A 

photograph of J.B. and G.G. that was extracted from Sanchez’s cell phone was “taken or 

modified” on January 26, 2019 at 7:48 p.m. Inside her Honda, which had been parked in 

the carport, officers found a backpack, a blue Champion jacket, and additional lottery 

tickets, which were confirmed to have been the ones taken during the Bullard Avenue 7-

Eleven robbery.

On February 5, 2019, officers outside the Grant Avenue residence announced their 

presence via loudspeaker and repeatedly instructed J.B. and any other occupants to come 

out. Two women—including J.B.’s mother—appeared at the front door, but “they were 

not very cooperative” and “weren’t exiting.” Meanwhile, Officer Sullivan of the Fresno 

Police Department’s K9 unit, was in “a rear perimeter position” when he observed J.B. 

“com[ing] up to the fence line,” “put]ting] his head up over the fence,” “look[ing] down 

at [him] in the alleyway,” and “[going] back to where [he] couldn’t see him anymore.” 

Eventually, officers were able to go inside the residence, but they could not find J.B. A 

neighbor subsequently reported that “she had found blood in her backyard and believed 

someone had gotten into her garage.” Sullivan, his canine, and other officers went to the 

neighbor’s garage. Before entering, Sullivan identified himself and announced that he 

“was going to use [his] dog to search.” He then heard J.B. stating that he “was inside the 

garage,” “was stuck inside a dryer,” “was giving up,” and “needed help to get out.” J.B., 

who exhibited cuts on his hand, was apprehended.

After J.B. was taken into custody, officers searched the Grant Avenue residence. 

In the living room, there were “tan Jordan shoes”; lottery tickets “pretty much 
7.

everywhere”; an “AK style airsoft,” and a replica semiautomatic handgun with a silver 

“metal” “slide portion” and “plastic material bottom.” In the southwest bedroom, there 

were “tan Nikes”; “purple burgundy colored pants”; a “black plastic bag” containing “a 

bunch of shredded up tobacco products” and three “light blue rubber gloves”; tobacco 

products on the windowsill, all of which except one were unopened; “a lot of” lottery 

tickets; a loaded gun; and an identification card belonging to a male other than J.B. 

Xiong, who participated in the search, confirmed that the pants were the same ones J.B. 

was wearing at the time of the February 3, 2019 surveillance. In the southeast bedroom, 

there were female clothing, an identification card belonging to a woman, and a black 

airsoft gun. In a hallway, there was a backpack containing tobacco products, most of 

which were unopened. Xiong confirmed that this backpack was carried by one of the 

women at the time of the February 3, 2019 surveillance. Finally, in the master bedroom, 

there were tobacco products.

DISCUSSION

I. Substantial Evidence Supported the Juvenile Court’s Robbery 

Findings on Counts 2 Through 4

a. Standard of Review

“The same standard of appellate review is applicable in considering the 

sufficiency of the evidence in a juvenile proceeding as in reviewing the sufficiency of the 

evidence to support a criminal conviction.” (In re Sylvester C. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 

601, 605, fn. omitted.)

“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the 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.’” (In re Cheri T. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1404.) “Substantial 

evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from that 
8.

evidence.” (In re Michael D. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 115, 126.) “[O]n appeal all 

conflicts in the evidence and attendant reasonable inferences are resolved in favor of the 

judgment.” (In re Juan G. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1, 5, fn. omitted.) “‘“‘If the 

circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing 

court that the circumstances might also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding 

does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.’”’” (In re George T. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 620, 

631.)

“[O]ur sole function as a reviewing court in determining the sufficiency of the 

evidence is to determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential 

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (In re Michael M. (2001) 86 

Cal.App.4th 718, 726, fn. omitted.) “‘“[A] verdict will not be set aside unless the record 

clearly shows that upon no hypothesis whatsoever is there sufficient substantial evidence 

to support it.”’” (In re Lynette G. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1094.)

b. Analysis

On appeal, J.B. does not dispute that Palm Bluffs Liquor was robbed on 

January 26, 2019 and the Bullard Avenue 7-Eleven and Shaw Avenue 7-Eleven were 

robbed on February 3, 2019. Instead, he contends that the juvenile court “erred in finding 

[he] was one of the robbers in question ....” (Capitalization omitted.) 

“The sufficiency of the evidence of identification is generally a question for the 

trier of the facts.” (People v. Wiest (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 43, 45.) “In order to sustain a 

conviction the identification of the defendant need not be positive.” (Ibid.) “The 

identification of the perpetrator of an offense may be established entirely by 

[circumstantial] evidence.” (People v. Barnum (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 803, 805.)

i. Robbery of Palm Bluffs Liquor (Count 2)

The record—viewed in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s findings—

shows that on January 26, 2019, Sanchez entered and “looked through” Palm Bluffs 

Liquor around 10:10 p.m. Ten minutes later, the store was robbed by two armed masked 
9.

males. One of the culprits wore pants that were “a blueish [sic] color toward the top” and 

“maroon reddish” from “midthigh to below the knees” “with some tears in them in the 

thigh area and knee area.” The next day, lottery tickets taken during the robbery were 

brought to EZ Mart Liquor by Sanchez and G.G. to be scanned. On February 3, 2019, 

during his surveillance of J.B.’s residence, Detective Xiong observed J.B. outdoors 

wearing the same unique pants as one of the Palm Bluffs Liquor robbers. (Cf. People v. 

Sanford (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 84, 92 [no evidence showing the defendant wore 

distinctive clothing items identified by witnesses during jewelry store heist].) In a 

subsequent search of J.B.’s residence, officers found those pants in a bedroom. 

Furthermore, a photograph of J.B. and G.G. was extracted from Sanchez’s cell phone. 

That image was “taken or modified” on January 26, 2019 at 7:48 p.m., about two and 

one-half hours before the robbery. Given these circumstances, a trier of fact could 

reasonably conclude that J.B. was one of the two Palm Bluffs Liquor robbers.

ii. Robberies of Bullard Avenue 7-Eleven (Count 3) and Shaw 

Avenue 7-Eleven (Count 4)

Identity may be inferred from the factual similarities of the charged offenses. 

(See, e.g., People v. Vines (2011) 51 Cal.4th 830, 857–858, overruled in part by People v. 

Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56, 104; Alcala v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1205, 1224; 

People v. Miller (1990) 50 Cal.3d 954, 988–989; People v. Haston (1968) 69 Cal.2d 233, 

247–250 (Haston).) “To be admissible as modus operandi evidence there must be 

common marks which, considered singly or in combination, support the strong inference 

that [the] defendant committed [the] crimes.” (People v. Bean (1988) 46 Cal.3d 919, 

937.) “The inference of identity, moreover, need not depend on one or more unique or 

nearly unique common features; features of substantial but lesser distinctiveness may 

yield a distinctive combination when considered together.” (People v. Miller, supra, at p. 

987.) At the same time, the features “must be distinctive rather than ordinary aspects of 

any such category of crime.” (People v. Bean, supra, at p. 937.)
10.

The record—viewed in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s findings—

shows that on February 3, 2019, three males robbed the Bullard Avenue 7-Eleven at 

around 4:00 a.m. and then the Shaw Avenue 7-Eleven at around 4:20 a.m. There were 

numerous similarities between these robberies and the Palm Bluff Liquors robbery on 

January 26, 2019. Each incident took place in Fresno under the cover of darkness and 

involved at least two armed masked perpetrators, the subjugation of workers on duty, and 

the theft of money and lottery tickets. We do not believe these common marks alone are 

“of that distinctive nature necessary to raise a logical inference” that J.B. was one of the 

7-Eleven robbers because “[i]t is common knowledge that each ... of the[se] indicated 

marks are shared ... by very many armed robberies.” (Haston, supra, 69 Cal.2d at 

p. 248.) However, the consideration of these marks in combination with other more 

conspicuous features supports that inference. First, in all three robberies, there was the 

presence of a semiautomatic handgun replica with a “silver top.” In the search of J.B.’s 

residence, officers found that item in the living room. (Cf. People v. Vines, supra, 51 

Cal.4th at pp. 847, 857–858 [ammunition as circumstantial evidence of identity].) 

Second, and perhaps more significantly, Sanchez—J.B.’s associate—participated in all 

three robberies. As noted, she cased Palm Bluffs Liquor 10 minutes before it was robbed 

by J.B. and another accomplice on January 26, 2019 and then brought the stolen lottery 

tickets to be scanned at a different liquor store on January 27, 2019. On February 3, 

2019, data from the tracking device established that Sanchez’s Honda was parked near 

the Bullard Avenue 7-Eleven and the Shaw Avenue 7-Eleven at the times of their 

respective robberies. Stolen items inadvertently discarded were recovered close to these 

parking spots. Following the robberies, the Honda stopped at J.B.’s residence before 

returning to Sanchez’s residence. On February 5, 2019, after Sanchez was arrested, 

officers searched her vehicle and found a blue Champion jacket that resembled the one 

worn by one of the 7-Eleven robbers as well as lottery tickets that had been stolen from 

the Bullard Avenue 7-Eleven. “It is clear that [Sanchez’s] presence ... is a mark whose 
11.

distinctive nature tends to differentiate [the charged robberies] from other armed 

robberies. There is only one [Sanchez], and h[er] conjunction with [J.B.] in [the Palm 

Bluffs Liquor robbery], together with h[er] [unequivocal] participation in the [two 7-

Eleven] robberies ..., supports the inference that [J.B.] ... was h[er] accomplice in those 

[7-Eleven robberies].” (Haston, supra, at p. 249.)

We also point out that the three 7-Eleven perpetrators took lottery tickets and 

tobacco products; at least one of the perpetrators wore blue gloves; and officers found 

countless lottery tickets, tobacco products, and blue gloves in J.B.’s residence.

iii. Flight

Lastly, the record—viewed in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s 

findings—shows that on February 5, 2019, when law enforcement instructed J.B. to exit 

his residence, he fled, snuck into a neighbor’s garage, and tried to hide inside a dryer. 

“Evidence of flight supports an inference of consciousness of guilt and constitutes an 

implied admission.” (People v. Brooks (1966) 64 Cal.2d 130, 138; see People v. Bigham

(1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 73, 78 [the defendant’s flight when confronted by uniformed 

police and spontaneous exclamatory statement “‘Jesus Christ, the cops’” indicative of 

consciousness of criminal involvement].)

iv. Conclusion

In view of the foregoing circumstances, we conclude that substantial evidence 

supported the juvenile court’s robbery findings on counts 2 through 4.

II. The Purported Five-day Delay in the Juvenile Adjudication Did Not 

Result in a Miscarriage of Justice

a. Background

On March 6, 2019, the juvenile court denied the prosecutor’s motion to transfer 

J.B. from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction.

On March 18, 2019, J.B. waived time for the jurisdiction hearing for “+10” court 

days from April 3, 2019. On April 3, 2019, J.B.’s counsel was appointed and the matter 
12.

was continued to April 5, 2019. On April 5, 2019, J.B.’s counsel’s request for a 

continuance “to reset adjudication” was granted. Adjudication was set to commence on 

April 15, 2019. On April 8, 2019, the date for the jurisdiction hearing was vacated and 

the proceedings were stayed pending an order from the Fifth District Court of Appeal on 

the prosecutor’s writ petition regarding the juvenile court’s denial of the transfer motion. 

The petition was denied. The stay was lifted on November 25, 2019.

A hearing on remittitur was held on December 3, 2019. The juvenile court 

reinstated criminal proceedings against J.B. J.B.’s counsel remarked:

“[O]n March 18 of 2019 ... [J.B.] waived time for his jurisdictional hearing 

to April 3rd of 2019 plus 10. I was appointed on [J.B.]’s case on April the 

4th, made my first appearance in court on April the 5th. No additional time 

waivers were granted. The stay was granted on April 8th of 2019 so we 

were three court days into the 10-day period at the time when the stay was 

issued on April 8th. The stay was then lifted on November 25th. So five 

court days had elapsed, including today, from that date which means in my 

calculations, we should be on day eight of the 10-day period and that the 

case would time out on December the 5th. And so I would be asking to set 

it on December the 5th and we should proceed expeditiously.”

The prosecutor responded:

“It’s the People’s position when the stay was originally put into 

place by the Fifth District Court of Appeal, the court here lost jurisdiction 

regarding the timeout period for the adjudication. When the matter got 

placed on calendar for today, it’s the People’s position that ... when we 

show up today, it’s to set a new adjudication date with a new timeout being 

an additional plus 15 court days. [¶] ... [¶]

“The issue with setting it on [December] 5th is that the People need 

at least five business days to get subpoenas issued to witnesses and law 

enforcement personnel. So it’s a difficulty running into that as well as 

arranging witnesses to come testify at the adjudication so it’s putting the 

People in a very tough position as well. So we would be asking that at the 

very minimum ... we set an adjudication date with the idea of being plus 10 

court days from the timeout date from today.”
13.

The juvenile court commented:

“All right. Well, I think we have two options. One, my experience 

has been that once the stay is lifted, it goes back to the original time period 

which would be jurisdiction must be set within 15 court days if they are in 

custody. The Court can set it within 10 days or even 7 days if that would 

accommodate the parties[,] but I don’t have any authority one way or the 

other. It’s just been my understanding and practice ... that once the stay is 

lifted, the original time periods resume[,] not what was in effect at the time 

the stay was ordered[,] because I do believe the People have a right to have 

at least some time to subpoena witnesses ....”

Following additional arguments by counsel, the court pronounced:

“I do believe because there’s been no authority given as to each of your 

positions and the time that’s available, I think the most reasoned decision 

... is to go with the seven day statutory time allow[ed] to continue the 

matter once you pass the original jurisdiction date unless there’s a specific 

time waiver which, in this case, there hasn’t been. So I think that would put 

us to the 12th as the timeout. The most appropriate thing to do would be to 

set it for the 10th, again, this being no surprise that the opinion would be 

coming out on [November] 25th and [counsel] on behalf of [J.B.] would be 

requesting an adjudication date as soon as possible and the representation 

that the People need at least five days. I think they can proceed today with 

making sure subpoenas get out which would give them at least the five 

court days to insure [sic] subpoenas are properly issued.”

The jurisdiction hearing commenced on December 10, 2019.

b. Analysis

Courts recognize a minor’s right to a speedy adjudication in juvenile delinquency 

proceedings. (In re Chuong D. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1309 (Chuong).) 

“Moreover, the statutory provisions establishing the juvenile delinquency process include 

very specific deadlines for processing a wardship petition.” (Ibid.) For instance, “[i]n 

the case of a minor detained in custody at the time of the filing of the petition, the petition 

must be set for hearing within 15 judicial days from the date of the order of the court 

directing such detention.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 657, subd. (a)(1).)
14.

J.B. argues that the juvenile court “erroneously and prejudicially granted the 

prosecution’s request for five additional days in which to prepare for [the] adjudication.” 

(Capitalization omitted.) He reiterates his counsel’s contention below that the timeout 

date was December 5, 2019. The Attorney General disagrees, reciting the prosecutor’s 

contention below that “the statutory time to bring a matter to adjudication reset[s] after a 

previously imposed stay [i]s lifted.” Both sides appear to concede that there is no legal 

authority addressing the effect of a stay on the requirement to set a juvenile hearing 

within a statutorily prescribed period. We need not resolve this issue.

Even assuming, arguendo, that the juvenile court erroneously delayed the 

adjudication by five days, “the speedy trial violation, in and of itself, does not entitle 

[J.B.] to a reversal of the court’s order.” (Chuong, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 1311.) 

“[O]n appeal after a judgment of conviction, a defendant must show more than an 

erroneous ruling of the trial court. Unless he seeks immediate relief by way of a 

prerogative writ, the defendant must show that the error resulted in a miscarriage of 

justice, within the meaning of article VI, section 13 ... of the state Constitution, i.e., he 

must convince the appellate court that the delay, in some material way, affected his 

ability to present a defense to the charge [citation].” (People v. Rodriguez (1971) 15 

Cal.App.3d 481, 484, fn. omitted; see Chuong, supra, at p. 1311.) The record before us 

“indicates no such prejudice” to J.B. (People v. Rodriguez, supra, at pp. 484–485.) 

Furthermore, in his briefs, while J.B. repeatedly asserts that the delay was prejudicial, he 

never specifies why. “Consequently, we reject his claim that the court’s order must be 

reversed based upon the violation of his speedy trial right.” (Chuong, supra, at p. 1312.)2

2 Accordingly, we need not address either J.B.’s alternative claim of ineffective assistance 

of counsel or the Attorney General’s claim of forfeiture.
15.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s adjudication and orders are affirmed.

MEEHAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

POOCHIGIAN, Acting P.J.

DeSANTOS, J.