P. v. Jarmon
Filed 11/6/13 P. v. Jarmon CA2/7
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SEVEN
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
KEYOSHA JARMON,
Defendant and Appellant.
B242385
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. TA120124)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County,
Laura R. Walton, Judge.
Affirmed.
Barbara
A. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala
D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan
Pithey and Rene Judkiewicz, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
________________________
Keyosha Jarmon appeals from the judgment entered after a
jury convicted her on two counts of robbery. She challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to support the convictions. We
affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1.
Charges
Jarmon was
charged in an information with two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code,
§ 211), with an allegation as to each count that a principal in the commission
of the offense was armed with a firearm (a handgun) (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1)). Represented by counsel, Jarmon pleaded not
guilty and denied the arming enhancements.
2.
a.
At around midnight, Juan Marentes was looking down at his iPod while
walking on the sidewalk near his sister’s house. Glancing up, he noticed a man and a woman
crossing the street and walking towards him.
Marentes stepped onto the parkway to let them pass on the sidewalk, and
the couple separated. The man stopped
next to Marentes, produced a handgun and pointed it at Marentes’s abdomen. The woman, later identified as Jarmon, walked
around Marentes and stepped down into the street. The man, Jarmon’s boyfriend, began searching
Marentes’s pockets and removed some cigarettes, while Jarmon snatched the iPod
from Marentes’s hand. Marentes turned
away from the boyfriend, quickly grabbed his iPod from Jarmon and started
heading towards his sister’s house, flanked by the boyfriend and Jarmon. As the three of them were walking, the man
continued pointing his gun at Marentes, who urged the boyfriend not to hurt
him.
Marentes looked up and saw Vicente
Venegas in his front yard. Venegas owned
the house in front of the house in which Marentes’s sister lived and had seen
the boyfriend and Jarmon “pushing†Marentes on the sidewalk. When Marentes, Jarmon and the boyfriend
arrived at Venegas’s front yard, the boyfriend walked through the gate and was
met by Venegas. The two men engaged in a
brief scuffle. In the meantime, Jarmon
entered the yard and stood next to her boyfriend, followed by Marentes, who
stood behind Venegas. The boyfriend
pointed the gun at Venegas’s head and pulled out a wallet, containing $200,
from Venegas’s pocket. Marentes shouted
for help, and Jarmon and her boyfriend fled together, crossing the street and
running towards an alley.
Robert Kelley was driving in the
area when he saw a man chasing Jarmon.
Kelley stopped and Jarmon jumped into his car and told him to
drive. Kelley drove until stopped by
police, who arrested Jarmon.
Detective Jose
Carias of the Los Angeles Police Department examined Jarmon’s cell phone and
found a text message which had been sent about an hour before the
robberies. The message read in part,
“But we Finna hit this lick and off to u.â€
According to Carias, in specific areas of Southern California,
individuals who are not necessarily gang members use “lick†as street slang for
robbery. Carias testified in armed
street robberies, there is typically a gunman and an accomplice who assists the
gunman by removing the property from the victim.
b.
The defense
evidence
The defense called Los Angeles
Police Officer Michael Lanza to impeach Marentes’s testimony. Lanza testified that, in an interview,
Marentes told him he pushed Jarmon’s hand away when she attempted to remove
some property from his pockets, but never mentioned Jarmon taking his
iPod. Lanza further testified Marentes
said that, in trying to get away, he encountered Venegas on the street; Venegas
then started to return home, but was stopped on his driveway by the armed
man. Marentes never said the boyfriend
and Jarmon walked into Venegas’s front yard.
Jarmon testified she was 18 years
old on the night of the robberies and on a date with J-Mac, her new
boyfriend. Jarmon acknowledged she wrote
the text message, “But we Finna hit this lick and off to you.†However, Jarmon testified she did not know
what “lick†meant, J-Mac told her to write the message, and she complied
because he was older and more knowledgeable than she, and she trusted him.
At some point during their date,
J-Mac retrieved something from his car and asked Jarmon to take a walk
with him. When they encountered
Marentes, J-Mac let go of her hand and began patting Marentes’s pockets and
demanding his keys and wallet. Jarmon
initially thought J-Mac was joking, but when she saw Marentes’s reaction, she
became frightened. Jarmon testified she
never saw J-Mac point a gun a Marentes and denied taking his iPod. She also claimed Marentes hit her while J-Mac
was patting him down.
Later, as
three of them were walking down the street, Jarmon turned and saw Marentes
enter a front yard, followed by J-Mac.
Venegas was on the front porch.
Jarmon testified she never entered the front yard; when she saw J-Mac
point a gun at Venegas’s head, she fled and flagged down a passing motorist, who
drove her away. Jarmon denied helping
J-Mac commit the robberies and was shocked and frightened by what
happened. Jarmon also testified she
resented J-Mac “do[ing] something around me that I had no idea about.â€
3.
Verdicts and Sentencing
A jury convicted
Jarmon on both counts and found true the arming enhancements. The trial court
suspended imposition of sentence and placed Jarmon on three years of formal
probation.
DISCUSSION
1.
To assess a claim of
insufficient evidence in a criminal case, “we review the whole record to
determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime or special circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.]
The record must disclose substantial evidence to support the
verdict—i.e., evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such
that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. [Citation.] In applying this test, we review the evidence
in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the
judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced
from the evidence. [Citation.] ‘Conflicts and even testimony [that] is
subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for
it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the
falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends. [Citation.]
We resolve neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts; we look
for substantial evidence.
[Citation.]’ [Citation.] A reversal for insufficient evidence ‘is
unwarranted unless it appears “that upon no hypothesis whatever is there
sufficient substantial evidence to supportâ€â€™ the jury’s verdict.†(People
v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.)
2.
There Was Sufficient
Evidence Jarmon Aided and Abetted the Robberies
Robbery is the felonious taking of
personal property in the possession of another from his or her person or
immediate presence, against his or her will and accomplished by means of force
or fear. (Pen. Code, § 211;
69.) A necessary element of the crime is the specific intent to permanently
deprive the owner of his or her property.
(People v. Anderson (2011) 51
Cal.4th 989, 1002.) An aider and abettor of a specific intent
crime like robbery shares the perpetrator’s specific intent when he or she
knows of the perpetrator’s criminal purpose and aids, promotes, encourages, or
instigates the perpetrator with the intent of encouraging or facilitating the commission of the crime. (People
v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1224.)
Neither mere presence when a crime is committed, nor failure to prevent
it, is sufficient, although those factors, as well as companionship, conduct
before and after the offense, and flight may be considered in determining a
defendant’s criminal responsibility. (
261, 272-273; In re Juan G. (2003)
112 Cal.App.4th 1, 5.)
There was
sufficient evidence Jarmon aided and abetted the robberies. The record shows Jarmon and her boyfriend
together approached Marentes, and while her boyfriend searched Marentes’s
pockets at gunpoint, Jarmon took his iPod, although Marentes was able to
retrieve it. Jarmon then walked on one
side of Marentes, accompanied by her boyfriend, who walked on the other side of
Marentes while continuing to point his gun at Marentes. Jarmon followed her boyfriend into Venegas’s
front yard and stood next to him, as he took Venegas’s wallet at gunpoint. Thereafter, the two of them fled together.
Jarmon contends the evidence
was insufficient she knowingly aided and abetted the robberies because Marentes
gave conflicting accounts as to where and how both robberies occurred and what,
if any property was taken from Marentes.
Jarmon argues the record leaves the “salient events†too uncertain to
rule out reasonable doubt as to the more plausible scenario that Jarmon was
simply on a date with her boyfriend, when he unexpectedly decide to engage in
two robberies.
The
conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony were for the jury to
resolve. (See People v. Zamudio, supra,
43 Cal.4th at p. 357.) While we must determine
that the evidence is reasonable, credible and of solid value, we may not invade
the province of the fact finder by reweighing the evidence, reevaluating the
credibility of witnesses or substituting our own conclusions for the jury’s
findings. (People v. Ochoa (1993)
6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206; People v. Diaz (1992) 3 Cal.4th 495, 541.) The evidence in the record was sufficient to
sustain Jarmon’s convictions for aiding and abetting the two robberies.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is
affirmed.
ZELON,
J.
We concur:
PERLUSS,
P. J. SEGAL,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
making these statements to Officer Lanza.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
