In re C.H.
Filed 6/4/13 In re C.H. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
In re C.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
2d Juv. No. B242682
(Super. Ct.
No. J1262827)
(Santa
Barbara County)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
C.H.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
C.H. appeals a judgment
of the juvenile court after it sustained a juvenile wardship petition (Welf.
& Inst. Code, § 602) and found he had committed
§ 211). We conclude, among other
things, that: 1) substantial evidence supports the finding that C.H. used force
to maintain possession of an item he stole from a market, 2) the evidence is
sufficient to support the actus reus and mens rea components of robbery, and 3)
there is sufficient proof in the record to identify C.H. as the
perpetrator. We affirm.
FACTS
Hilarino Solano was
hired by a Santa Barbara market to
protect the merchandise from theft.
On April 4, 2012, Solano
saw a boy pick up a "Rockstar" drink and leave the store without
paying. He followed him out of the market
and asked him to pay for the item. The
boy refused and said "fuck you" and "I don't have
anything."
Solano tried to grab the
boy's backpack "to take the Rockstar away from him." The boy hit Solano with a "forceful
punch" to the face. The Rockstar fell
to the ground.
Frances Wageneck, an
assistant high school principal, testified that C.H. was the boy who struck
Solano in the face. She recognized him
because he was a student at her school.
C.H. did not testify at
the hearing and he called no witnesses.
The trial court found
true the allegations of the petition that alleged C.H. committed robbery. The court found that Wageneck
"positively identified" C.H. "as the one" who hit Solano.
DISCUSSION
The
Force Element of Robbery
C.H. contends there is
insufficient evidence to support the finding that the force element of robbery
was established.
In deciding the
sufficiency of the evidence, we review the record in the light most favorable
to the judgment. (In re Sylvester C. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 601, 605.) We do not weigh the evidence or decide the
credibility of the witnesses.
"Robbery is '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.)" (People
v. Pham (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 61, 65.)
"'[M]ere theft becomes robbery if the perpetrator, having gained
possession of the property without use of force or fear, resorts to force or
fear while carrying away the loot.'"
(Ibid.)
C.H. contends he dropped
the Rockstar drink before he used any force and claims therefore the force
element for maintaining possession of the stolen property was not
established. Solano however testified
that before C.H. dropped the item,
C.H. hit Solano with a "forceful punch" to the face. The trial court could reasonably find that
testimony was sufficient to establish the force element. "The robber's escape with the loot is
not necessary to commit the crime."
(People v. Pham,
p. 65.) Robbery is a continuing
offense. It does not end until the
robber reaches a place of safety.
"It is sufficient to support the conviction that appellant used
force to prevent the guard from retaking the property and to facilitate his
escape." (People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23, 28.)
Actus
Reus and Mens Rea
C.H. contends there was
no evidence that he committed the required act with the requisite criminal
intent.
"[E]very crime has
two components: (1) an act or omission,
sometimes called the actus reus; and (2) a necessary mental state, sometimes
called the mens rea." (
Cal.App.4th 1521, 1528.)
"Defendant's guilt of robbery . . . requires not only
that he commit the requisite act but also that he have the requisite specific
intent." (Ibid.)
C.H. contends that any
force he used was solely to escape and not in furtherance of an attempt to
maintain possession of the stolen item.
But Solano approached
C.H. and asked him to pay for the stolen item.
C.H. refused, insulted Solano and said, "I don't have
anything" and "fuck you."
He then punched Solano in the face before the item fell to the ground. From this evidence, the trial court could
reasonably find sufficient actus reus and mens rea with the specific intent to
maintain possession of the stolen item by use of force.
Evidence
of Identity
C.H. contends there is
insufficient evidence to support a finding that he was the person who took the
item from the store and fought with Solano.
We disagree.
C.H. notes Solano gave
conflicting identity testimony. On
direct, Solano identified C.H. But on
cross-examination, he said he was "unsure" because the perpetrator
had "a little bit of a beard."
Solano testified, "I don't know if it's . . . this one
now."
The People concede
Solano gave this conflicting identity testimony. But they note there is other evidence to
support the trial court's finding that C.H. was the perpetrator. "'"[I]t is the exclusive province
of the trial judge . . . to determine the credibility of a witness
and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination
depends."'" (
616, 623.) The trier of fact resolves
conflicts in the evidence and decides which portion of a witness's testimony
will be credited or rejected. (
witnesses' testimony raise only evidentiary issues that are for the [Trier of
fact] to resolve." (
1250, 1259.)
Solano testified that he
saw a boy pick up the Rockstar drink and leave the store without paying. He followed the boy outside the store. The two of them were not more than 17 to 20
feet apart. Solano caught up with him
and asked him to pay for the drink; the boy struck Solano. Solano testified the boy had possession of
the Rockstar in his backpack before it fell to the ground.
The trial court could
reasonably infer C.H.'s identity as the perpetrator also was established by
another witness who also corroborated Solano's testimony. Wageneck knew C.H. because he was a student
at her school. She witnessed the
confrontation with Solano and saw C.H. hit Solano in the face. She corroborated Solano's testimony by
testifying she saw a broken "monster drink" on the ground. The court could also draw reasonable
inferences supporting C.H.'s identity as the perpetrator because he possessed
the "Rockstar" shortly after the theft. (People
v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 176.)
Wageneck repeatedly asked C.H. to stay, but he left the area. The evidence is sufficient.
We have reviewed C.H.'s
remaining contentions, and we conclude he has not shown error.
The judgment is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT,
P.J.
We concur:
YEGAN, J.
PERREN, J.
Thomas
R. Adams, Judge
Superior
Court County of Santa Barbara
______________________________
Marysol C. Bretado for
Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris,
Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E.
Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising
Deputy Attorney General, Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorney General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
