P. v. Jenkins

Filed 8/31/09 P. v. Jenkins CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. W. Charles Morgan, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Rhonda Cartwright-Ladendorf and Kristen Kinnaird Chenelia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Douglas Arthur Jenkins, Jr., (defendant) appeals his robbery conviction as based on insufficient evidence. We will affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

About 1:00 oclock on the afternoon of April 28, 2008, J.B. (the victim) noticed that a bag of motorcycle equipment and some other items were missing from the patio at his home in Mira Loma. About the same time, the victim saw defendant and Anthony Ocasio (Ocasio), walking westward along a road that runs beside a drainage ditch behind his property. The two were carrying a bed sheet, hammock-style, between them. To the victim, they appeared to be acting a little suspicious. The victim grabbed a golf club and drove to a nearby park, through which the road and the drainage ditch run, to intercept the two men. After confronting them, the victim asked them what they were doing and pulled aside the bed sheet where he saw his motorcycle bag. The bag contained three pairs of boots, a helmet, gloves, and goggles. At that point, the two men dropped the sheet and defendant began punching the victim, hitting him in the head about three times, while Ocasio grabbed the golf club and started swinging it at the victim. The victim was able to escape and called 911 on his cell phone. Defendant and Ocasio attempted to pick up the sheet with the stuff inside of it and [run] towards the southwest corner of the . . . park area. When the two men dropped the sheet and ran away, the victim saw that they had also stolen his computer monitor.

On October 10, 2008, a jury found defendant guilty of robbery, petty theft, and burglary. (Pen. Code 211, count 1; 484 subd. (a), count 2; 459, count 3.)^[1]

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence that he took the victims property by means of force or fear and that his robbery conviction must therefore be reversed.

Standard of Review

When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is challenged, an appellate 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, such that a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032, 1077.)

Robbery

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.) However, [a] robbery is not completed at the moment the robber obtains possession of the stolen property. The crime of robbery includes the element of asportation, the robbers escape with the loot being considered as important in the commission of the crime as gaining possession of the property. . . . [A] robbery occurs when [a] defendant uses force or fear in resisting attempts to regain the property or in attempting to remove the property from the owners immediate presence regardless of the means by which defendant originally acquired the property. (People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23, 27-28.) A conviction for robbery is supported when a thief uses force to prevent the owner from retaking the property and to facilitate an escape. (Id. at p. 28.)

Analysis

Defendant argues, somewhat disingenuously, that there was no evidence that the victim was trying to retake possession of his property when he confronted defendant and Ocasio as they asported his property. But it is hard to imagine what else the victim could have been doing when he armed himself with the golf club and drove to the park. Obviously, he did not go there to play golf. The victim intercepted and questioned defendant and his cohort about what they were doing and pulled aside the sheet in which they had concealed his missing motorcycle bag. Defendant certainly seemed to think the victim was trying to retake his property: he immediately began hitting the victim over the head with his fists before facilitating an escape by running away.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P. J.

We concur:

HOLLENHORST

J.

MILLER

J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.