Opinion
B228076
02-15-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAQUAN PARKER et al., Defendants and Appellants.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA080373)
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING APPELLANT WILLIAMS'S PETITION FOR
REHEARING AND THE PEOPLE'S PETITION FOR REHEARING [CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
BOREN, P. J., DOI TODD, J., ASHMANN-GERST, J.
It is ordered that the opinion filed January 17, 2012, and not certified for publication be modified as follows:
1. On page 18, delete the entire section "D," including the heading, and replace with the following:
"D. Sufficient Evidence of Robbery
Indulging all reasonable inferences that the jury could draw from the evidence, we conclude the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions for robbery of the bartender's purse in count 8. There was, however sufficient evidence of robbery of the bartender in her representative capacity with respect to the bar owner. (People v. Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 331.)
With respect to the purse, there was no evidence that the bartender's purse was taken, or that it was taken from her immediate presence. Therefore, two elements of the offense of robbery of the bartender's personal property were not shown by the evidence.
The testimony of the three bar patrons established that one of the robbers demanded money at gunpoint from the female Hispanic bartender, and at one point Reyes testified that, "The other person took the money from her . . . ." The jury was instructed with CALCRIM No. 1600 that "[a] store or business employee who is on duty has possession of the store or business owner's property." The elements of immediate presence, the fact that the taking was against the bartender's will, the use of force or fear, and the intent to permanently deprive were all shown by the evidence. The prosecutor identified the victim in count 8 as the "female Hispanic bartender" at El Paisano to the jury. Although Boyd's attorney objected to the name change, none of the defense attorneys objected to the identification of the count 8 victim as the bartender from El Paisano. The fact that the bartender did not testify does not preclude a charge of robbery as to her as an employee "in possession" of the money in the cash register. (See People v. Jones (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1053-1055 [evidence sufficient to support conviction for robbery of store's truck driver in his representative capacity with respect to owner of the property, even though truck driver did not testify].) Under the totality of the circumstances we conclude appellant's convictions for robbery in count 8 must be affirmed."
2. On page 47, delete the entire first sentence of the disposition beginning with, "The judgments are modified as to all three appellants . . ." and ending with, "Boyd's term in count 8 is to be doubled."
This modification constitutes a change in judgment.
Respondent's petition for rehearing is denied.
Appellant Williams's petition for rehearing is denied.