Opinion
A147594
08-28-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARLOS LAW, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. SCN 224883)
Carlos Law appeals following a jury verdict concluding he was guilty of second degree robbery enhanced due to his use of a deadly weapon and prior serious felonies. He argues his conviction must be reversed because there was insufficient evidence that he took the property of another through force or fear. We disagree, and affirm.
BACKGROUND
The victim was an investigator for Sports Authority, a retail store in San Francisco's Stonestown Shopping Center. In October 2015, he was working at the store in plainclothes when Law approached him holding a brick or piece of concrete. Law asked the victim if he worked in the store. The victim said, "[No], I don't." Law said, "Well, if you do and you try to stop me, I'm going to hit you in the head with this brick."
Law then placed store merchandise of approximately seven to ten hats in his backpack and left the store. The victim reported the incident to the police.
An amended information charged Law with second degree robbery, enhanced due to his use of a deadly weapon, parole status and prior felony convictions. A jury found Law guilty of second degree robbery and the prior offense enhancements were found true by the court. The court sentenced Law to a two-year prison term for robbery, doubled due to his commission of a prior serious felony, plus five years as an enhancement for a different prior serious felony to total nine years in prison. Other enhancements were stricken in the interests of justice. He timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Law argues there is insufficient evidence to find him guilty of robbery because he had no reason to know the victim was an employee of Sports Authority when he stole the hats. In fact, the victim denied that he was. But it is not necessary to prove that Law was aware the victim was a store employee in order to prove him guilty of robbery. Moreover, in context, the victim's denial that he worked for Sports Authority was immaterial.
"Robbery is defined as '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.) Robbery is larceny with the aggravating circumstances that 'the property is taken from the person or presence of another . . .' and 'is accomplished by the use of force or by putting the victim in fear of injury.' " (People v. Anderson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 989, 994 (Anderson).)
In People v. Scott (2009) 45 Cal.4th 743, 752 (Scott), the court held that "employees working at a business premises [are] in constructive possession of the employer's property during a robbery, based upon their status as employees and without examining whether their particular duties involved access to or control over the property stolen." The jury was so instructed in this case, and Law does not challenge the instruction. In these circumstances, it is manifest that Law was guilty of robbery.
Law took the hats from the Sports Authority store after telling the victim that if he worked at the store and tried to abort the theft, Law would hit him in the head with a rock or brick. The hats were in the victim's constructive possession, and the taking was accomplished by a threat of force. There is no evidence that supports an innocent taking, and the missing merchandise was never recovered.
In spite of this, Law says he did not commit a robbery because there is no evidence he knew he was using force against someone with a possessory interest in the property. But the intent required for robbery is described as "the specific intent to deprive the victim of the property permanently. [Citations.] Thus, 'the act of force or intimidation by which the taking is accomplished in robbery must be motivated by the intent to steal.' " (Anderson, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 994.) There is no question that Law's threat of force was motivated by his intent to steal merchandise. Here, that is all that was required. "None of [the] cases hold[] that it is not robbery unless the act of force or intimidation was motivated by an intent to apply force against the victim or to cause the victim to experience fear." (Id. at p. 995.)
Law argues the law is in disarray because the cases focus on the existence of a special relationship between the owner of property and the purported victim in order to determine whether there was a sufficient possessory interest at stake or the taking was in the immediate presence of the owner to establish a robbery. (See Sykes v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 479 [neighboring security guard chasing a burglar was not a robbery victim]; People v. Galoia (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 595 [non-employee chasing thief was not a victim of robbery]; People v. Bekele (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1457 [property owner's friend a victim of robbery where he was conscripted to stop a burglary in process]; People v. Nguyen (2000) 24 Cal.4th 756 [employees were victims of robbery but not visitor of business]; People v. Gilbeaux (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 515 [independent contractor janitors working in premises were victims of a robbery]; People v. Ugalino (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1060 [drug dealer's roommate was not a victim of robbery]; People v. Bradford (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1345 [independent contractor security guards were victims of store robbery]; People v. Prieto (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 210 [owner of purse who was standing four to five feet away from friend from whom it was forcibly taken was a robbery victim]; and People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23 [security guard who confronted thief after he left a store is a robbery victim].)
The rules emerging from these cases are neither as muddled as Law makes them out to be nor relevant to his argument. Although the cases look for a special relationship between the owner of property and the purported victim to analyze whether the elements of robbery were proven, employees of a property owner hold constructive possession of their employer's property whenever they are present and working during a robbery. (Scott, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 752.) Moreover, the cases on which Law relies to make his point all address the substantive elements of robbery, not the perpetrator's knowledge or intent.
Law says he could not have been found guilty of robbery because there was no evidence from which the jury could conclude that he knew he was threatening an undercover security officer. "In sum, no authority cited to us provides positive support for defendant's argument. Nor do we find anything in the law, or the facts of this case, to convince us robbery contains a heretofore unidentified element of intent to cause the victim to experience force or fear." (Anderson, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 995.) In Anderson the court concluded that a car thief committed robbery when he accidentally ran over the car's owner while effectuating his getaway. He did not know she owned the car, and argued he could not be guilty of robbery unless he intended to strike or apply force to the victim. (Id. at pp. 993, 995.) Even though Anderson addressed a slightly different question than the one presented here, its lesson is apt and persuasive. We see no reason to add an element to the intent required for robbery.
Finally, Law argues that his exchange with the victim was nothing more than his way to confirm the victim was not a store employee so he could take the items without committing a robbery. His brief states: "The entire conversation can profitably be recast as, 'Is this stuff yours?' 'No.' 'Good. I'm going to take it. Don't be a hero.' " But we review a record for sufficiency of the evidence in its entirety in the light most favorable to the judgment. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576-578.) It is equally plausible, if not more so, that the exchange between Law and the victim was to confirm that he intended to take items from the store no matter what, and would use force if necessary. "Well, if you do. . . try to stop me, I'm going to hit you in the head with this brick." In this light, Law's threat was motivated by his intent to steal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Siggins, J. We concur: /s/_________
McGuiness, P.J. /s/_________
Pollak, J.