Court Opinion

ID: 9952093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 18:02:09.172319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:38:01.724188
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/19/24 P. v. K.S. 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     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,                                                                 2d Crim. No. B325488
                                                                           (Super. Ct. No. FJ57776)
     Plaintiff and Respondent,                                               (Los Angeles County)

v.

K.S.,

     Defendant and Appellant.

      K.S. appeals orders of the juvenile court sustaining the
jurisdiction allegations in a Welfare and Institutions Code section
602 petition, declaring her a ward of the court, and reinstating
her on supervision. We conclude that sufficient evidence
supports the finding that K.S. aided and abetted a second degree
commercial burglary, and affirm.
            FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
      After midnight on June 17, 2022, a group of people broke
into a cannabis cultivation business on Bradley Avenue in Los
Angeles. The owner of the business, Ming F., was alerted to the
break-in by his alarm system and live-feed surveillance cameras.
He estimated that approximately 11 people were on his property.
Ming F. saw that the metal gate to the parking lot had been cut
open with power tools. He also saw people cutting open the locks
on the side door of the building and a person smashing the bullet-
proof glass on the wall, entering the business, and opening doors
from the inside. Ming F. called the 911 dispatch operator as he
watched the rampage on his surveillance cameras. Suddenly,
everyone left the building through the parking lot and dispersed.
       Ming F. estimated that the total loss to his property,
including the property damage, was approximately $17,415. He
was unable to identify any of the people entering his business or
their vehicles. Ming F. saw a person entering the passenger side
of a vehicle parked directly in front of the metal gate that had
been breached. The passenger ran “from the direction” of his
cannabis business. K.S., the driver of that vehicle, took off “right
away” when the police arrived. Ming F. was unable to identify
K.S. as the driver.
       When responding Police Officer Sabrina Martinez arrived,
she parked directly behind a burgundy-colored Honda sedan
driven by K.S. that was parked directly in front of the breached
metal gate. The engine of the vehicle was on and its headlights
were off. Martinez saw a male “running from the business” and
enter the passenger side of the vehicle. He followed the vehicle
which drove away quickly after the passenger entered the
vehicle.
       K.S. drove at a high rate of speed, drove through red traffic
lights, swerved through driving lanes, and eventually collided
with a traffic light pole. K.S. then left the vehicle and ran

                                 2
northbound on San Fernando Road. When searched, the vehicle
did not contain any burglary tools or fruits of the burglary.
       K.S. testified that a man named “Jay” asked her to pick up
his cousin “Romero” at the Bradley Avenue address. She did not
know Jay or his cousin. The Honda sedan belonged to Jay. K.S.
waited 8 to 10 minutes for Romero to enter the vehicle. She
stated that she fled the pursuing police officer because she was
an unlicensed driver. K.S. denied violating any traffic laws
during the pursuit.
       Following a contested hearing, the juvenile court sustained
the misdemeanor allegations of commercial burglary, and fleeing
a pursuing police officer while driving recklessly. (Pen. Code,
§ 459; Veh. Code, § 2800.2.) The court reinstated K.S. on
supervision pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section
725.
                            DISCUSSION
       K.S. argues that there is insufficient evidence to support
the finding that she aided and abetted a robbery because there is
no evidence that she was aware a burglary had occurred and that
there were other reasons (curfew violation, lack of a driver’s
license) for her to flee apprehension. Specifically, she asserts
that there is insufficient evidence that Romero entered the
cannabis property or that he intended to commit a theft. She
contends that the jurisdiction finding violates her constitutional
rights to due process of law and a fair trial.
       The same standard of review governs the sufficiency of
evidence in adult criminal cases and juvenile cases; we review the
entire record and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
judgment to determine whether substantial evidence supports
the conviction. (In re A.G. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 647, 653.) We

                                3
do not redetermine the weight of the evidence or issues of witness
credibility. (In re M.S. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1177, 1185.)
Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence is the
exclusive province of the trier of fact. (Ibid.) “If the
circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings,
reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the
circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a
contrary finding.” (People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 60.)
       A person aids and abets the commission of a crime when he
or she, (1) with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the
perpetrator, (2) and with the intent or purpose of committing,
facilitating, or encouraging commission of the crime, (3) by act or
advice, aids promotes, encourages, or instigates the commission
of the crime. (People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1158, 1164;
People v. Abelino (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 563, 578.) “Neither mere
presence at the scene of a crime, nor the failure to take steps to
prevent a crime, is alone enough to establish that a person is an
aider and abettor. Such evidence may, however, be considered
together with other evidence in determining that a person is an
aider and abettor.” (Abelino, at p. 578.) Aiding and abetting
liability includes those persons who serve as “lookout[s]” or those
who keep the vehicle engine running and drive a getaway vehicle.
(People v. Swanson-Birabent (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 733, 743-
744.)
       Here sufficient evidence and all reasonable inferences
therefrom support the juvenile court’s conclusion that K.S. aided
and abetted the burglary. Ming F. and Martinez saw an
individual run from the cannabis business and enter the
passenger side of the vehicle K.S. was driving. K.S. sat inside the
vehicle with the headlights off and the engine running for 8 to 10

                                4
minutes awaiting Romero. Once Romero fled the property and
entered the vehicle, K.S. drove from the scene quickly and led the
responding officers on a high speed pursuit. Although K.S. offers
alternative explanations for her behavior, we do not substitute
our conclusions for those drawn by the trier of fact. (People v.
Albillar, supra, 51 Cal.4th 47, 60.)
                          DISPOSITION
      The orders are affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:

             BALTODANO, J.

             CODY, J.

                                5
                Robert J. Totten, Commissioner

             Superior Court County of Los Angeles

                ______________________________

      Sarah M. Javaheri, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Wyatt E. Bloomfield and William H. Shin,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.