Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. NJ25136, John C. Lawson, Judge.
David L. Polsky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey and David Zarmi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CHANEY, J.
Minor Anthony H. appeals from the order of wardship entered following a finding that he committed second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. Anthony contends the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding. We disagree and affirm the order.
BACKGROUND
On February 2, 2010, Garret C. was walking home when he encountered a group of five teenagers that included Anthony. One of the teens asked Garret if he had “anything like an i-Pod.” Garret said, “No.” The teen then asked Garret what he had in his pocket, where earbuds were sticking out. He asked, “Can I have those?” Garret felt nervous and scared, and gave the earbuds to the teenager who asked for them. Anthony then asked Garret, “What you got.” Garret said he had nothing. Anthony put his hand in Garret’s pocket and took his wallet. Garret held onto the wallet and tried to get it back. Another of the teens then punched Garret in the face, and Garret let go of the wallet. The teenagers ran away but were later apprehended.
A police officer who searched Anthony found he had three gift cards that had been in Garret’s wallet.
The juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging second degree robbery, declared Anthony to be a ward of the court, and ordered him committed to a camp for a maximum of five years, four months.
DISCUSSION
Anthony contends the evidence was insufficient to show that he committed robbery, in particular that he used force or fear to take Garret’s wallet.
To resolve this issue, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to decide whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding, so that a reasonable fact finder could find the allegation true beyond a reasonable doubt. (In re Babak S. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1088-1089.) We also presume in support of the juvenile court’s finding the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence and make all reasonable inferences that support the finding. (Id. at p. 1089.)
“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.)
Anthony does not dispute that he unlawfully took Garret’s wallet. He contends only that the taking was accomplished without force or fear. This is so, he argues, because he communicated no threat and exercised no more force than was necessary to remove the wallet from Garret’s possession. The argument is without merit.
“Where the element of force or fear is absent, a taking from the person is only theft....” (People v. Morales (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 134, 139.) The amount of force necessary to complete a robbery is “a quantum more than that which is needed merely to take the property from the person of the victim, and is a question of fact....” (People v. Wright (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 203, 210.) “‘All the force that is required to make the offense a robbery is such force as is actually sufficient to overcome the victim’s resistance....’” (People v. Clayton (1928) 89 Cal.App. 405, 411, citation omitted; People v. Burns (2009) 172 Cal.App.45th 1251, 1259.)
Here, Garret testified that when Anthony took the wallet out of his pocket he “held on to the wallet” and tried to get it back. Garret let go of the wallet only after one of Anthony’s companions punched him in the face. The juvenile court could reasonably conclude from this testimony that Garret resisted the theft and that Anthony overcame the resistance by force.
Accordingly, we conclude the record is sufficient to support the juvenile court’s robbery finding.
DISPOSITION
The order under review is affirmed.
We concur: MALLANO, P. J., JOHNSON, J.