Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Solano County Super. Ct. No. J34847
Richman, J.
Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the County of Solano juvenile court sustained an allegation that minor James J. committed one count of felony robbery arising out of a purse-snatching. The court ordered him placed at Fouts Springs Youth Facility for a maximum time of confinement of eight years, seven months. On appeal, James challenges the jurisdictional and dispositional orders, contending there was insufficient evidence that he used enough force to support a robbery finding. We disagree and affirm.
BACKGROUND
On the afternoon of February 23, 2009, Nancy Breaux was walking across a grocery store parking lot, carrying her purse in her left hand. Two young males ran up behind her, and as one of them passed her on the left, he snatched the purse from her hand and ran off. The purse contained Ms. Breaux’s cell phone, house keys, and wallet with credit cards and $135 in cash, among other items.
Thanks to the assistance of a bystander who was in the parking lot at the time of the purse-snatching, the perpetrators were apprehended a short while later. James was identified as the assailant who grabbed the purse. The purse and some of its contents were returned to Ms. Breaux later that day, but she never recovered the cell phone, credit cards, or some of the cash.
On February 24, 2009, the District Attorney for the County of Solano filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that James committed one count of felony second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. At the time the petition was filed, James was already a ward of the juvenile court, having been declared such on February 7, 2006 when he was 13 years old.
During the intervening three years, James had numerous encounters with the juvenile justice system.
A contested jurisdictional hearing was held on March 20, 2009. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court sustained the robbery count, explaining: “I’m going to find that the People have sustained the allegations of Count 1 beyond a reasonable doubt. The amount of force is sufficient to make the theft a robbery. The particulars involved: first, the credibility of both witnesses, civilian witnesses, I find to be high. Second, as [the prosecutor] has argued, I think that is sensible, it’s the totality of all the bits of evidence that link [James] to the robbery. The two identifications, the purse that’s found and the statement that he made at the time that he got into the car and the single bill of a large denomination that was found on him at the time that he was arrested.”
At the dispositional hearing that followed, the court continued the wardship and, consistent with the probation department’s recommendation, ordered James placed at Fouts Springs Youth Facility for a maximum time of confinement of six years, one month, which was subsequently recalculated to eight years, seven months.
This timely appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
James presents one argument on appeal: that there was insufficient evidence of force to elevate the charged offense from theft to robbery. On an “appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a juvenile court judgment sustaining the criminal allegations of a petition made under the provisions of [Welfare and Institutions Code] section 602... [the reviewing court] must apply the same standard of review applicable to any claim by a criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment of conviction on appeal.” (In re Ryan N. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1371.) In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we apply the substantial evidence test, under which, we must “review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below 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; People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 252, 260–261; People v. Thomas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 488, 490.) Applying this standard, we conclude there was sufficient evidence of force to justify the court’s sustaining of the robbery allegation.
Penal Code section 211 defines robbery as “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.” Where the element of force or fear is absent, a taking from the person is grand theft rather than robbery. (People v. Morales (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 134, 139.) There is no statutory definition of the force required for a robbery conviction, but the element of “force” in robbery is discussed in several cases.
People v. Morales, supra, 49 Cal.App.3d 134 involved a purse snatching which resulted in robbery and first degree murder charges when the victim, who fell during the incident, died as an indirect result of an injury suffered when she fell. In considering the force element of a robbery charge, the court explained that to prove sufficient force for robbery, “something more is required than just that quantum of force which is necessary to accomplish the mere seizing of the property.” (Id. at p. 139.)
In People v. Mungia (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1703, another purse-snatching case, the court explained the standard this way: there is sufficient force for robbery if the defendant used “more force than necessary to accomplish the taking... or, stated another way,... defendant engage[d] in a measure of force at the time of taking to overcome the victim’s resistance[.]” (Id. at p. 1708.) The court further observed that the term “force” is a relative concept: “An able-bodied and/or large person may experience a given physical act applied to her body as less forceful than would a feeble, handicapped or small person.” (Id. at pp. 1708–1709.) The court concluded that because force is a factual question to be determined by the trier of fact using its own common sense, the trier of fact could consider the victim’s physical characteristics vis-à-vis the attacker’s “in determining whether the physical act applied to the victim constituted ‘force’ within the meaning of [Penal Code] section 211[.]” (Ibid.)
At the contested jurisdictional hearing, Ms. Breaux described the force James used when he snatched her purse. Under direct examination by the prosecutor, she testified as follows:
“Q: Now, when your purse was taken from you, how much force, if any, was used to take it?
“A: A lot of force.
“Q: Okay. Did you feel it taken from you?
“A: Yes.
“Q: Describe that, please.
“A: He pulled my left arm and my shoulder went forward, so did my hand, and my two—my index finger and my middle finger hurt after he pulled it.”
Under cross-examination by counsel for James, Ms. Breaux offered the following testimony:
“Q: [T]he person who took your purse never touched you, correct?
“A: No.
“Q: The person just touched the purse?
“A: He pulled the purse from me.
“Q: The person pulled the purse from you. You didn’t have that purse up over your shoulder, right?
“A: I did not.
“Q: And it was just one quick pull?
“A: A forceful pull.”
Ms. Breaux’s testimony, which was the sole evidence on the issue of force and was thus uncontradicted, unequivocally conveyed that James used “[a] lot of force.” In a “forceful pull,” he caused her arm, shoulder, and two fingers to move forward with such force that he caused pain in her two fingers. This constitutes substantial evidence that James used more “than just that quantum of force which is necessary to accomplish the mere seizing of the property” (People v. Morales, supra, 49 Cal.App.3d at p. 139), and is enough to support the court’s finding.
James urges a contrary result by citing a series of cases in which the force found sufficient to justify a robbery conviction exceeded that used in this case. (See People v. Morales, supra, 49 Cal.App.3d 134, People v. Mungia, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d 1703, People v. Burns (2009)172 Cal.App.4th 1251; People v. Thomas, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th 488.) Certainly, robberies occur in which the force used exceeds that employed here, and the cases James cites are examples of such robberies. That does not, however, undermine our conclusion that under the facts of this case there was sufficient evidence of force to support a robbery finding.
Again citing People v. Thomas, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th 488 and People v. Burns, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th 1251, James also seems to suggest that the required amount of force must be sufficient to overcome resistance to the purse-snatching. While force sufficient to overcome resistance may elevate the offense from grand theft to robbery, resistance is not required for a robbery finding. For example, in People v. Mungia, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d at pages 1706-1707, defendant shoved the victim and then snatched her purse from her shoulder. There was no evidence that the victim offered any resistance, yet this force was sufficient force to constitute robbery. Likewise here.
We close by noting the possibility that a different trier of fact might have reached a different conclusion, namely that there was insufficient evidence that James used enough force in snatching Ms. Breaux’s purse to support a finding of robbery. (See People v. Thomas, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th 488, 494-495.) But the question before us is not whether the court reached the only conclusion possible. Indeed, it does not matter that the facts could reasonably have supported a lesser charge, or even a finding of innocence. (See People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793.) Our role, as explained above, is limited to determining whether the conclusion reached by the trier of fact was supported by substantial evidence. In this case, it was.
DISPOSITION
The sustained finding of felony robbery is affirmed.
We concur: Haerle, Acting P.J., Lambden, J.