Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Katherine Mader, Judge. Affirmed. Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA060632
Tara K. Allen, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie C. Brenan and William H. Shin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
PERLUSS, P. J.
Kamau McGee appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by a jury for grand theft person with a special finding, following his admissions in a bifurcated proceeding, he had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law and had served one prior prison term for a felony. He contends the evidence is insufficient to prove the victim’s property was taken from her person. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
McGee was charged by amended information with committing grand theft person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)). The information also specially alleged McGee had suffered two prior serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and had served two prior separate prison terms for a felony (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The evidence at trial established that more than $400 was stolen from Heikohie Fathi while she was watching a movie from an aisle seat inside a theater in Westwood Village. The theft occurred after Fathi had purchased a snack and returned to her seat. Before eating her snack, Fathi placed her purse on the floor next to the aisle and against her left foot to ensure she could feel someone taking her purse.
At some point during the movie Fathi heard noises coming from the floor, looked down and saw some dark hair next to her. Believing someone had unleashed a dog, Fathi jumped up and alerted her husband, who was sitting next to her. Fathi then saw a hand in her purse and two dollars fall to the floor. The thief, who was later identified as McGee, fled up the aisle, followed by Fathi’s husband. Fathi began yelling that her money had been stolen and that her husband needed help in catching the thief.
McGee was chased by Fathi’s husband and ultimately captured on the street by several bystanders. One of the individuals who pursued McGee saw him drop a “wad” of money as he attempted to escape. When McGee was apprehended, he had several $1 bills inside his closed fist. Fathi did not recover most of the approximately $460 that had been in her purse.
Fathi explained she had withdrawn $500 from the bank immediately before going to the movie to use for Fathers’ Day gifts for her husband and father. After her purchases at the theatre, she had approximately $450 to $460 left, which she kept in a pocket of her purse. Fathi testified she “had some 20’s, and I had some singles, and I had some hundreds.”
The jury convicted McGee of one count of grand theft person. In a bifurcated proceeding McGee admitted he had suffered one prior strike conviction and had served one prior prison term for a felony. The trial court sentenced McGee to an aggregate five years in state prison, consisting of the two-year middle term doubled under the Three Strikes law, plus one year for the prior prison term enhancement.
CONTENTION
McGee contends the evidence is insufficient to prove he took the money from Fathi’s person, a necessary element of the crime of grand theft person.
DISCUSSION
1. Standard of Review
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we “consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment and presume the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence in support of the judgment. The test is whether substantial evidence supports the decision, not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 432; People v. Staten (2000) 24 Cal.4th 434, 460.) Our sole function is to determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime or the special allegation present beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.) The Supreme Court has held, “Reversal on this ground is unwarranted unless it appears ‘that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the jury’s finding].’” (Ibid., quoting People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755.)
“Substantial evidence” in this context means “evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value -- such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578; accord, People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 848-849 [“‘“[W]hen the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, the court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence -- i.e., evidence that is credible and of solid value -- from which a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”’”].) “Although the jury is required to acquit a criminal defendant if it finds the evidence susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which favors guilt and the other innocence, it is the jury, not the appellate court, which must be convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 132.)
2. Substantial Evidence Supports McGee’s Conviction of Grand Theft Person
Grand theft person is committed when property of any value is taken from the person of another (§ 487, subd. (c)). To satisfy the “from the person” requirement, the property taken must “‘at the time be in some way actually upon or attached to the person, or carried or held in actual physical possession -- such as clothing, apparel, or ornaments, or things contained therein, or attached thereto, or property held or carried in the hands, or by other means, upon the person.’” (In re Jesus O. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 859, 863, quoting People v. McElroy (1897) 116 Cal. 583, 586.)
Theft of money or property of a value exceeding $400 is also grand theft. (§ 487, subd. (a).) Although the uncontradicted evidence at trial was that McGee took more than $400 from Fathi’s purse, and thus committed grand theft whether or not he stole the money from her person, the People did not charge McGee and the trial court did not instruct the jury on this alternative theory of the crime.
McGee contends the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish Fathi’s purse was in contact with her foot or otherwise “physically attached” to her person at the time he took the money from it and, therefore, does not prove he committed a theft from her person. (Compare People v. Huggins (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1657 [defendant took victim’s purse “from her person” when he grabbed it as it lay on the floor while the victim had her foot pressed against it; “the purse was at all times in contact with the victim’s foot. Moreover, the victim’s purpose in placing the purse against her foot was to retain dominion and control over the purse, i.e., so she could know where the purse was at all times”] with People v. Williams (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1465, 1471-1472 [victim placed purse on passenger’s seat of her car; theft of purse while victim sitting in driver’s seat not grand theft person because purse not “physically attached to the victim in some manner”].) Specifically, he argues, as he did before the jury, that Fathi did not testify her purse was touching her foot at the precise moment McGee removed the money from it. Instead, he argues, Fathi’s only testimony was that she heard a noise, prompting her to look down to see McGee’s hair before she observed his hand inside her purse.
Fathi consistently testified on direct and cross-examination her purse was on the floor touching her foot or her leg during the movie. As did the victim in People v. Huggins, supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at page 1657, Fathi explained she had made sure the purse was in contact with her body so she could sense if it was disturbed in some way. It was reasonable for the jury to infer from this testimony that Fathi was physically connected to her purse at the moment McGee was taking her money, whether or not she actually felt his hand inside the purse. (Merely because Fathi was mistaken in believing she would be able to detect an attempt to steal her purse or its contents does not contradict her testimony that she was in contact with it during the theft.)
Determining witness credibility is the exclusive province of the trier of fact. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.) The testimony of a single witness, unless physically impossible or inherently improbable, is sufficient to support the verdict. (People v. Elwood (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1365, 1372.) Nothing in the record suggests that Fathi’s testimony was inherently improbable or physically impossible. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment (Ochoa, at p. 1206), reasonably justifies the jury’s verdict.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: WOODS, J. ZELON, J.