People v. M.B. CA2/6

DISCUSSION

M.B. argues that he was denied due process of law pursuant to the federal and California constitutions because insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that he committed two counts of robbery. He asserts that the amount of force used was only that necessary to accomplish the theft of the

3 telephones. M.B. points out that neither Navarro nor Lopez suffered any injuries or bruises from the theft. 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 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…