Filed 8/30/17 P. v. Lam CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DENNIS EDWARD LAM,
Defendant and Appellant.
| D071841
(Super. Ct. No. SCN353350) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, K. Michael Kirkman, Judge. Affirmed.
Allison H. Ting, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Meredith S. White, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
A jury convicted Dennis Edward Lam of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) under the theory he used force or fear to retain stolen property initially taken without force or fear. This theory of robbery was recognized in People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23, 27-28 (Estes) and is sometimes referred to as an Estes robbery.
On appeal, Lam contends we must reverse his robbery conviction because the Estes case was wrongly decided. He invites us to reexamine the case and criticize this theory of robbery. We decline the invitation as the California Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the validity of this theory of robbery and the Supreme Court's decisions are binding on us. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 (Auto Equity Sales).) We, therefore, affirm the judgment.
II
BACKGROUND[1]
Lam entered a department store, where he selected and paid for a cell phone. He then went to one of the electronics aisles and ripped a package containing a stylus pen from a locked peg hook. He took the package to another location in the store, removed the stylus pen from the package, pocketed the stylus pen, discarded the empty package on a bottom store shelf, headed toward the store exit, and left the store.
Two loss prevention officers saw Lam pocket the stylus pen and leave the store without paying for it. They stopped Lam just outside the store. They tried to bring him back into the store, but he struggled and tried to get away. During the struggle, he reached into a black satchel bag he was carrying, pulled out a gun, and aimed it at one of the officers, who ran away.
The other officer bear-hugged Lam from behind, turned him to the side, and lifted him a bit to prevent him from shooting the fleeing officer. Lam fired the gun in the direction of the fleeing officer, but the bullet missed the officer.
Lam reached back and pointed the gun against the other officer's head and fired a second shot. When the officer felt the gun against his head, he ducked closer to Lam, which prevented the bullet from striking the officer.
Lam pointed the gun at the officer's stomach and used the gun to push himself away from the officer. The gun slid down and a third shot struck the ground. Lam subsequently ran across the parking lot, got into a car, and drove away.
III
DISCUSSION
"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." (Pen. Code, § 211.) As explained in Estes, supra, 147 Cal.App.3d at page 28, "The crime of robbery is a continuing offense that begins from the time of the original taking until the robber reaches a place of relative safety. It is sufficient to support the conviction that [the defendant] used force to prevent the ... retaking [of] the property and to facilitate his escape. ... The events constituting the crime of robbery, although they may extend over large distances and take some time to complete, are linked by a single-mindedness of purpose. [Citation.] Whether [a] defendant used force to gain original possession of the property or to resist attempts to retake the stolen property, force was applied ... in furtherance of the robbery and can properly be used to sustain the conviction."
Lam concedes his conduct qualified as an Estes robbery, but he contends the Estes case was wrongly decided. However, the California Supreme Court has affirmed the decision and its reasoning multiple times. (People v. Williams (2013) 57 Cal.4th 776, 787 ["Because larceny is a continuing offense, a defendant who uses force or fear in an attempt to escape with property taken by larceny has committed robbery"]; People v. McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610, 686 ["A defendant who does not use force or fear in the initial taking of the property may nonetheless be guilty of robbery if he uses force or fear to retain it or carry it away in the victim's presence"]; People v. Anderson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 989, 994 ["It ... is robbery when the property was peacefully acquired, but force or fear was used to carry it away"]; People v. Gomez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 249, 261 ["The force or fear element of robbery can be satisfied during either the caption or the asportation phase of the taking"]; People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1158, 1165, fn. 8 ["[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"].)
As Lam recognizes, these authorities are binding on us. (Auto Equity Sales, supra, 57 Cal.2d at p. 456.) Accordingly, we decline Lam's invitation to revisit the matter.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, J.
O'ROURKE, J.
[1] Lam was convicted of multiple offenses. We confine our summary to the facts underlying his robbery conviction as it is the only conviction at issue in this appeal.
