Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County No. DL023993, Leslie Ann Flynn, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.).
Jeffrey S. Kross, 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, Jeffrey J. Koch and Marissa Bejarano, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
The juvenile court found that defendant E. S. committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c) and four probation violations. His status as a ward of the court and his probation were continued. He was committed to juvenile hall for 365 days and ordered to pay a $50 restitution fine. Defendant claims there was insufficient evidence of either prong of the taking element of robbery, i.e., gaining possession and asportation. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
As Dennis Williams, defendant, and Irving M. got off a bus and the latter two began following Williams. Williams, who had been listening to his iPod, moved his headphones to his neck and turned to look at defendant. He saw defendant pull out a knife with a three-inch blade and heard him say, “Give me your iPod, foo.” Williams refused and began backing away; Irving M. then punched him. When Williams fell to his hands and knees, his iPod fell out of his pocket but he picked it up. Irving M. then tried to grab it, threatening to “blast [Williams’s] ass” if he did not give it to him, and the two struggled to gain possession. After a moment Williams noticed he did not have the iPod but held only the cord to the earphones that had previously been connected to the iPod.
When Williams began shouting for help, defendant yelled, “Let’s get out of here” and defendant and Irving M. began running away; Williams chased them. A pedestrian told Williams he knew who the assailants were and Williams stopped, flagged down a patrol car, and reported the incident. He told the officer he “didn’t see where the iPod went.” Williams went to search for it and found it in the bushes about a foot ahead of where he had been pushed to the ground.
DISCUSSION
Where there is a claim of insufficient evidence, “we ‘examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citations.] We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citation.]” (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1129.) “Unless it is clearly shown that ‘on no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the verdict’ the conviction will not be reversed. [Citation.]” (People v. Quintero (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1162.) We apply the same standard to convictions based largely on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Meza (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1741, 1745.)
“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.) “‘The taking element of robbery’ consists of both a caption and an asportation. [Citation.]” (People v. Gomez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 249, 256.)
Defendant claims the evidence was insufficient to prove either possession or carrying away. He points to testimony that Williams never saw him or Irving M. with the iPod, but merely realized he was not holding it. He contends the “more plausible scenario” is that no one possessed the iPod but that it fell into the bushes after the struggle. Defendant concludes that this does not prove either that Irving M. ever had possession or that he moved it a sufficient distance to constitute robbery. We disagree.
“A very slight movement is sufficient for asportation [citation], and there is no requirement that the robber have manual possession of the property. [Citations.]” (People v. Pham (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 61, 65.) In People v. Shawver (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 859, while walking down the street, the victim was hit from behind and he fell on to his knees. The defendant jumped on him and tried to take money from his pocket. When a police officer arrived and pulled the defendant off the victim, he heard what he thought was change or metal objects falling to the ground. Subsequently $3.00 in bills and 81 cents in change was found and the defendant was charged with robbery.
On appeal the defendant argued that he had not completed a robbery because no one saw him with the coins and “it [was] not impossible that he was frustrated in his attempt before the [money was] in his possession and that [it] fell from the victim’s torn pocket . . . .” (People v. Shawver, supra, 235 Cal.App. at p. 862.) In affirming the court stated “that the sound of coins falling on the pavement . . . as [the] defendant was removed from his prone victim would support an inference that they were in [the] defendant’s hand and were dropped by him. . . . [I]t was for the trial court to decide whether or not to draw the inference of a completed theft; we cannot here review its conclusion.” (Ibid.)
The same is true here. Based on use of the knife, threats, and physical force used by defendant and Irving M., Williams lost possession of the iPod. It was ultimately found in the bushes about a foot ahead of Williams, thus satisfying the asportation requirement, even though the movement was only slight. We disagree that defendant’s suggested alternate scenario is more plausible; it is a contrary inference that the court refused to draw. We may not substitute our own judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: MOORE, J., IKOLA, J.