Filed 5/7/18 In re M.H. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----




In re M.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. C084903


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. No. JV138308)



Minor defendant M.H. contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that he committed robbery when he snatched a cell phone from the adult victim’s outstretched hand.
This is indeed a close case. However, as we explain, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution--as the law requires--we find the evidence sufficient. We therefore affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 14, 2016, at 1:48 p.m., victim Suzanne D. was waiting for a light rail train at the station. She was on “heightened alert” and was “cognizant of holding on to [her] phone” that was new and worth $600.
As Suzanne went to buy a ticket, defendant approached and asked if he could use her phone to call his mother for a ride. Suzanne refused to give defendant her phone, because “my instinct t[old] me better.” She offered to dial the number and place the call on speaker while she held the phone, so defendant could speak with his mother. Defendant laughed, as though he understood, and gave Suzanne a phone number. As Suzanne dialed, defendant was standing two to three feet away. Suzanne held the phone with a “pretty good” and “firm” grip, with her fingers cupped around the phone so it would not fall out of her hand even if she turned her hand over. She had previously dropped her phone and feared doing so again. She answered “yes” when asked by the prosecutor, “What was your intent when you held the phone? Was it your intent to hold it strong enough that, if someone were to try to take it, you would be able to hold onto it?”
As the phone began to ring, defendant “just grabbed it out and took off, ran, ran down the steps across the parking lot.” Suzanne testified defendant only used one hand and “[t]here was no force. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] There was no push. There was no struggle. It was just simply snatched out of my hand.” Suzanne did not feel “threatened,” “forced,” or afraid for her safety.
At first, Suzanne did not believe what happened and thought it was a joke. When she realized what happened, she was “dumbfounded,” “in shock,” and “upset.” She called 911 because the station security guard encouraged her to do so. A recording of the call was played for the juvenile court. Suzanne was crying during the call.
Suzanne admitted that she was making every effort to inform the juvenile court that no force was used because she didn’t want to get defendant in trouble. She was concerned defendant “made a bad mistake and it could haunt him for a while.”
During a recorded interview with police, defendant admitted he asked a woman to borrow her phone so he could call his mother and then took the phone. He later abandoned it.
On October 24, 2016, defendant and four other people used force and fear to take marijuana from an inhabited home.
On November 4, 2016, a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) was filed alleging defendant committed first degree robbery on October 24, 2016 (Pen. Code, §§ 212.5, 213, subd. (a)(1)(A); count one), and robbery on August 14, 2016 (id., § 211; count two). On April 18, 2017, the juvenile court found count two true. Defendant admitted count one.
During the May 2, 2017 disposition hearing, the juvenile court adjudged defendant to be a ward of the court and ordered him to serve 118 days in juvenile hall, with credit for time served. The court also ordered 124 days electronic monitoring, with credit for 64 days. Defendant timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in establishing the element of force, a necessary finding for the crime of robbery as presented here, where the parties agree fear was not a factor. He argues there was no evidence Suzanne resisted his efforts to take her phone. He adds that her testimony established only that he used the force necessary to take the phone out of her hand.
“In addressing a claim of insufficient evidence to support a conviction, this court ‘ “reviews the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, from which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ [Citation.] ‘We presume every fact in support of the judgment the trier of fact could have reasonably deduced from the evidence. [Citation.] 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. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 345.) Stated differently, reversal for insufficiency of the evidence is “unwarranted unless it appears ‘that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].’ ” (People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 577.)
Robbery is the taking of property from the person of another, “and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.” (Pen. Code, § 211.) If defendant does not use force or fear, the crime changes from robbery to theft. (People v. Church (1897) 116 Cal. 300, 303-304.) “ ‘The terms “force” and “fear” as used in the definition of the crime of robbery have no technical meaning peculiar to the law and must be presumed to be within the understanding of jurors.’ ” (People v. Mungia (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1703, 1708.) Still, “ ‘something more is required than just that quantum of force which is necessary to accomplish the mere seizing of the property.’ ” (People v. Burns (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1259.) “[A]ny force sufficient to overcome a victim’s resistance will necessarily be more force than required to seize the property.” (People v. Hudson (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 831, 839.) Because force is relative, a trier of fact may take into account the physical characteristics of the robber and the victim. (Mungia, at p. 1709.)
For example, in Burns the victim tried to clutch her purse while the defendant “ ‘grabbed it down’ ” and stepped on her toe. (People v. Burns, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1255.) The victim was unable to hold onto the purse, and the defendant took it and ran off. (Ibid.) On appeal, the defendant argued the trial court should have given a grand theft instruction “because the force used was only that necessary to seize the purse.” (Id. at p. 1257.) The appellate court disagreed, reasoning that “where a person wrests away personal property from another person, who resists the effort to do so, the crime is robbery, not merely theft.” (Ibid.)
Although here the victim testified she did not struggle with defendant, she was on “heightened alert” at the station. Suzanne’s “instinct” was to not trust defendant, so she did not hand him the phone. Instead, similar to the victim in Burns, she held the phone before defendant with a grip so “firm” as to prevent dropping the phone and also held the phone “strong enough that, if someone were to try and take it, [she] would be able to hold onto it.” (Italics added.)
It is true that defendant did not wrestle with his victim or step on her toe, like the defendant in Burns. However, he similarly had to snatch the phone with sufficient force to overcome his victim’s resistant grip. Despite testifying that she tried to hold the phone to prevent its taking, she was unable to do so in a manner that thwarted defendant’s grab. Although certainly a minimal showing, this would seem to constitute the “something more” “than just that quantum of force which is necessary to accomplish the mere seizing of the property” required by the cases discussed above. We therefore conclude there was sufficient evidence for the juvenile court to find that defendant committed robbery by taking the victim’s phone.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.




/s/
Duarte, J.



We concur:



/s/
Raye, P. J.




/s/
Robie, J.