From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Stokes

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Feb 9, 2012
E051533 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2012)

Opinion

E051533

02-09-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAURICE ALONZO STOKES, Defendant and Appellant.

Michael S. Evans for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, and Barry Carlton and Meredith S. White, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super.Ct.No. RIF145622)


OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Thomas E. Kelly, Judge. (Retired judge of the Santa Cruz Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

Michael S. Evans for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, and Barry Carlton and Meredith S. White, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

A jury found defendant Maurice Alonzo Stokes guilty as charged of the robbery of Kyle Allison and of assaulting Allison and Derek Moore by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 245, subd. (a)(1); counts 1-3.) On this appeal, defendant claims that insufficient evidence supports his robbery conviction. We reject the claim and affirm the judgment.

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Prosecution Evidence

Around midnight on April 13, 2008, in Moreno Valley, Allison, Moore, and their friend Brandon Duberry walked to a Del Taco then to a nearby AM/PM market. Duberry went inside the market while Allison and Moore waited outside near the rear or backside of the market. After Allison and Moore sat down on a curb, a group of approximately 10 young African-American men and women walked up to them, yelling "[W]hite boys, [W]hite boys."

Moore estimated that the group of 10 consisted of two women and eight men.

The group surrounded Allison and Moore in a "semi-circle" or "three-quarters circle." One member of the group asked Allison and Moore, "Where are you from?," then another asked, "Do you want to get jumped or catch the one on one?" Allison identified defendant at trial as the person who was standing directly in front of him.

Allison and Moore tried to run but were tackled to the ground. Moore curled up in a ball while four or five members of the group punched and kicked him, then took his wallet from his back pocket. Around four other members of the group punched and kicked Allison. One member of the group took Allison's cellular telephone and wallet, then returned the wallet, after taking $20 from it.

A minute or two after the attack, the attackers, including defendant, were standing around a black car parked outside the AM/PM market. Allison gave the police the license plate number of the black car. The parties stipulated that defendant's mother was the owner of the black car, the car was used by some of the attackers to leave the scene, and defendant and his mother were the only persons who drove the car in April 2008.

Around one month after the attack, Allison identified defendant from a six-pack photographic lineup as one of the attackers. After separately viewing the same six-pack photographic lineup, Moore said defendant looked like one of the attackers, but he could not positively identify him. At trial, Allison admitted he did not see defendant strike either him or Moore, take Moore's wallet, take his cellular telephone, or take the $20 from his wallet. Moore did not identify defendant as one of the attackers at trial. B. Defense Case

Riverside County Sheriff's Deputy Daniel Engels was the first officer to respond to the scene of the AM/PM after the attack. Deputy Engels recalled Allison and Moore telling him that a group of four Black males had attacked them; he did not recall them saying there were 7 to 10 attackers.

Defendant's grandmother testified that defendant was a nonviolent person. Defendant's mother testified that defendant did not used her black car at all during the weekend of Sunday, April 13 to Monday, April 14, and was home with her at the time of the attack on Allison and Moore. In 2007, defendant committed two burglaries, one in February and another in November. C. Verdict and Sentencing

At trial, the People claimed defendant aided and abetted the robbery of Allison and the assaults on Allison and Moore. Thus, the jury was given CALCRIM Nos. 400 and 401 on aiding and abetting. As indicated, the jury found defendant guilty as charged of robbing Allison in count 1 (Pen. Code, § 211) and of assaulting Allison and Moore by means likely to produce great bodily injury in counts 2 and 3 (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant was sentenced to the low term of two years for the robbery. A two-year term was imposed but stayed on count 2, and a concurrent two-year term was imposed on count 3.

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant claims that insufficient evidence supports his conviction for aiding and abetting the robbery of Allison, specifically because there is no evidence he knew of or shared the unidentified perpetrator's intent to steal property from Allison prior to or during the use of force against Allison.

When, as here, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal conviction is challenged on appeal, we review the entire record to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.) We are required to presume in support of the judgment every fact the jury could have reasonably deduced from the evidence. (Ibid.) The same standard applies when the conviction rests partly or entirely on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11.) Reversal on insufficient evidence grounds "„is unwarranted unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction]."'" (People v. Mason (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1199, citing People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.)

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; People v. Harris (1994) 9 Cal.4th 407, 415), and requires the specific intent to permanently deprive the victim of his or her property (In re Albert A. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1007). The intent to permanently deprive or steal must be formed before or during the act or use of force against the victim. (People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 19.) If the intent to steal is formed after the use of force against the victim, the taking will at most constitute a theft. (Ibid.)

"'A person aids and abets the commission of a crime when he or she, (i) with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator, (ii) and with the intent or purpose of committing, facilitating or encouraging commission of the crime, (iii) by act or advice, aids, promotes, encourages or instigates the commission of the crime.'" (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 851.) "Whether a person has aided and abetted in the commission of a crime is a question of fact, and on appeal all conflicts in the evidence and attendant reasonable inferences are resolved in favor of the judgment. Among the factors which may be considered in determining aiding and abetting are: presence at the crime scene, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense." (In re Juan G. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1, 5, fns. omitted.)

Defendant claims his robbery conviction must be reversed because there is no evidence he shared the perpetrator's intent to steal property from Allison before or during the attack on or the use of force against Allison. Not so. As the People argue, substantial evidence shows defendant either (1) knew of or shared the perpetrator's intent to steal property from Allison before the attack, or (2) knew of or shared the perpetrator's intent to steal from Allison during the attack, and with that knowledge or intent continued to aid and abet the attack on and the robbery of Allison.

Indeed, the evidence showed defendant was standing directly in front of Allison when the group of 10 young men and women first confronted Allison and Moore. After Moore and Allison tried to flee, each of them were tackled, kicked, and punched by four to five members of the group of 10. This supported a reasonable inference that the entire group of 10, including defendant, intended to aid and abet each other in assaulting and robbing Allison and Moore before the attacks and the use of force began.

Also, Allison testified he kept moving in an attempt to prevent his attackers from taking his wallet, but every time he moved his attackers hit him harder. This showed that even if defendant did not personally take Allison's wallet and cellular telephone and did not know his cohorts intended to take Allison's wallet and cellular telephone before the assault began, he became aware of his cohorts' intent to rob Allison during the assault, and continued to aid and abet the assault in order to allow the robbery to occur. Lastly, defendant was observed standing around his mother's car with the other assailants after the crimes were committed, and left the scene with several of the other assailants.

In sum, defendant was not merely present at the scene of the robbery. (Cf. People v. Durham (1969) 70 Cal.2d 171, 181 [neither mere presence at the scene of a crime nor knowledge of the crime but the failure to prevent it is sufficient to establish aiding and abetting the commission of the crime].) Instead, defendant's conduct and companionship with the other assailants before, during, and after the robbery supported a reasonable inference that if he was not the person who took $20 from Allison's wallet, he shared the unidentified perpetrator's intent to steal the money from Allison either before or during the use of force against Allison. (People v. Campbell (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 402, 409410 [concerted action with others implied a common purpose and shared intent to permanently deprive victims of property].)

In re Juan G., supra, 112 Cal.App.4th 1 is analogous. There, the defendant and a cohort approached a victim together. The cohort demanded money from the victim at knifepoint while the defendant stood by the cohort. The victim feared the cohort would stab him, and was further intimidated by the defendant, who was within touching distance. After the robbery, the defendant fled with the cohort. (Id. at pp. 3-4.) The Juan G. court rejected the defendant's claim that insufficient evidence supported his robbery conviction because he was merely present at the scene and did not know his cohort had a knife or planned to rob the victim. (Id. at pp. 5-6.) Instead, the court reasoned it could be reasonably inferred that the defendant "knew of and shared" the cohort's criminal intent and "aided, promoted, and encouraged the commission of the robbery." (Id. at p. 5, fn. omitted; see also In re Lynette G. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1094-1095.)

IV. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

King

J.
We concur:

Hollenhorst

Acting P.J.

Codrington

J.


Summaries of

People v. Stokes

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Feb 9, 2012
E051533 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Stokes

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAURICE ALONZO STOKES, Defendant…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

Date published: Feb 9, 2012

Citations

E051533 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2012)