P. v. Stoltie
Defendant was charged with a single count of robbery (Pen. Code, 211)[1]with personal infliction of great bodily injury upon unnamed victim Jane Doe ( 12022.7, subd. (a)). A jury found him guilty as charged and found the enhancement allegation true. Defendant was sentenced to a total term of six years: the middle term of three years for the robbery, plus three years for the enhancement.
Defendant appeals. He claims the trial court erroneously failed to instruct the jury sua sponte on the lesser included offenses of grand theft person ( 487, subd. (c)) and petty theft ( 488). He further claims the error was prejudicial because there is a reasonable probability that the jury, if it had been instructed on the lesser offenses, would have found him guilty of grand theft person or petty theft, but not robbery.
Court reject defendants claim of error. Court conclude there was insufficient evidence that defendant was guilty of grand theft person or petty theft, but not robbery. Hence, the trial court did not have a duty to instruct on these lesser offenses sua sponte. Court therefore affirm the judgment, including defendants robbery conviction and the great bodily injury enhancement.
Comments on P. v. Stoltie