Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCE275176, William J. McGrath, Judge.
McDONALD, J.
A jury convicted Jeffrey Anthony Woodfork of receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 496 subd. (a).) The court denied Woodfork's application for probation and sentenced him to prison for the upper term of three years for the receipt of stolen property conviction plus one year for each true finding of two prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) Woodfork appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In the early morning hours of October 1, 2007, the security alarm sounded at the law firm of Grace Hollis Lowe Hanson & Schaeffer (Grace Hollis). Michael Simpson, the systems administrator at Grace Hollis, later arrived at work to find the office had been burglarized. He initially noticed four laptop bags, a digital camera and a set of keys from his office were missing. Simpson also noticed the absence of a bottle of tequila remaining from an office party.
That same morning, Woodfork and Grace Sandoval rode the trolley to El Cajon. Woodfork originally met Sandoval at a sober living facility, but because of an altercation she no longer lived at the facility. Instead, Sandoval often slept in her car. While on the trolley Woodfork and Sandoval met Zeat Martinez. Martinez saw that Woodfork and Sandoval carried computer bags and a bottle of alcohol. During the trolley ride, Woodfork showed Martinez one of the computers and offered to sell the laptop for $1,000. After Martinez refused, Woodfork reduced the asking price to $500. (Ibid.) Martinez also rejected that price but told Woodfork he would pay $100. Woodfork, Sandoval and Martinez then left the trolley and walked to an abandoned apartment building to determine whether the computer worked.
Police Officer Joseph Crawford was on patrol in the area when he noticed the three individuals by the apartment building with an open bottle of tequila on the wall between Woodfork and Martinez. Crawford approached them and searched Woodfork and Sandoval. He found a pair of gloves, a screwdriver, a pocket knife and a set of keys on Woodfork. He found a digital camera in Sandoval's purse. A security tag attached to the camera identified it as "Property of Grace Hollis" and included an identification number and a bar code. Crawford also saw four canvas laptop bags against the back side of the wall. He asked to whom the laptops belonged and Woodfork and Sandoval both responded, "Those are ours." He asked Woodfork whether two of the bags were his and Woodfork replied, "Yeah, those are mine." Crawford searched the bags and found a laptop in each bag with a security tag labeled "Property of Grace Hollis" similar to the one found on the digital camera.
At trial, Woodfork testified in his own defense. He said he did not know the laptops were stolen and he did not find it suspicious that Sandoval had them in her possession.
DISCUSSION
A
Woodfork contends there was insufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt he knew the property was stolen, an element of the crime of receipt of stolen property. Even though Sandoval admitted receiving the stolen property she handed to Woodfork, he asserts the evidence does not support the inference he knew the property he possessed was stolen.
Sandoval pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property.
B
Proof of the crime of receiving stolen property requires the prosecution to establish that the property was stolen, the defendant was in possession of it, and the defendant knew the property to be stolen. (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a); People v. Anderson (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 414, 420-21.)
When a defendant challenges a conviction for insufficient evidence, we apply the substantial evidence standard of review. We review the whole record favorably to the judgment "to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence--that is, 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.) Before a judgment will be reversed for insufficient evidence, it must appear that on "no reasonable hypothesis whatsoever is there sufficient evidence to support the [judgment]." (People v. Bard (1968) 70 Cal.2d 3, 4-5.)
The knowledge element of receiving stolen property is often proved by an inference from circumstantial rather than by direct evidence. (People v. Alvarado (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 1003, 1019.) This inference is routinely made from either the defendant's failure to explain how he or she came into possession of the item, or from the suspicious circumstances relating to his or her possession. (Ibid.) A conclusion of knowledge may be made because " 'possession by a defendant of recently stolen property raises a strong inference of the other element of the crime: the defendant's knowledge of the tainted nature of the property.' " (People v. Reyes (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 975, 985.) The "inference is so substantial that only 'slight' additional corroborating evidence need be adduced in order to permit a finding of guilty." (Ibid.)
C
Suspicious circumstances surrounding the possession of stolen property corroborate the inference that the property was received with knowledge of its stolen nature. (People v. Lopez (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 274, 278.) Here the facts constitute suspicious circumstances based on Sandoval's behavior, which was inconsistent with her lifestyle, and Woodfork's offer to sell the property at an unreasonably low price. Sandoval's lifestyle was inconsistent with someone who would lawfully possess four laptop computers, a camera and an extra set of keys. This was not her first encounter with the law. She was previously convicted of selling drugs in 2005. She claimed she obtained the stolen property from an apartment once occupied by her son, rather than a retail location. The laptops were encased in matching black canvas bags but were received by Woodfork from a woman who routinely slept in her car. Sandoval told Woodfork that she needed to sell the items to raise money to fix her car, yet admitted that she spent money on alcohol the same day. Additionally, Woodfork received the stolen keys from Sandoval, a woman without a steady home or an operable car.
Woodfork further contributed to the suspicious circumstances surrounding his possession of the stolen items. His contention that he possessed the laptops to help Sandoval program them for sale is inconsistent with the behavior of someone who lawfully obtained possession of electronic equipment. Additionally, he offered to sell one of the laptops to a complete stranger for half his initial price. Woodfork initially offered one of the laptops to Martinez for $1,000 but Martinez told Woodfork the price was too high. Woodfork then reduced his price to $500. The sale of property at a disproportionately low price is a suspicious circumstance. (People v. Malouf (1955) 135 Cal.App.2d 697, 706.) Substantial evidence supports a finding Woodfork received stolen property with knowledge it was stolen.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., IRION, J.