Opinion
B205708
2-26-2009
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT CHANDLER, Defendant and Appellant.
Pamela J. Voich, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey and Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Not to be Published in the Official Reports
A jury convicted Robert Chandler of receiving stolen property. He appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence that he knew the property was stolen. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On November 6, 2007, Chandler was charged with one count of second degree burglary of a vehicle in violation of Penal Code section 459, and one count of receiving stolen property in violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a). The information also alleged that Chandler had served five prior prison terms pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). On January 25, 2008, a jury found him not guilty of burglary and of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor auto tampering, but found Chandler guilty of receiving stolen property. Chandler waived trial by jury on prior conviction allegations, and the court found the allegations true. The trial court sentenced Chandler to a total of six years in state prison, selecting the upper term of three years and doubling it under the three strikes law. The court dismissed on its own motion the five one-year prior prison term enhancements and ordered Chandler to pay restitution and fines.
The evidence at trial established that on the evening of October 5, 2007, Luiz Diaz parked his 1988 Toyota Corolla in front of his home on Plevka Avenue in Los Angeles. Diaz locked the car doors and went inside, leaving on the back seat a cardboard box containing smoke detectors and tools.
At about 2:30 the next morning, Francisca Parra, who lived across the street from Diaz, looked out her window and saw a tall black man wearing a light-colored top open the driver side door to Diazs car. The man took out a box and ran away and out of sight. Parra called Diazs house and told his wife someone had broken into their car. Diaz called the police.
Sheriffs Deputy Juan Rodriguez and his partner were nearby when they received a dispatch call alerting them of a burglary in progress. Deputy Rodriguez testified that the suspect description was "[m]ale [B]lack wearing a gray hooded sweater and white denim shorts and white tennis shoes." On cross-examination, Deputy Rodriguez testified (after refreshing his recollection with the incident report) that the dispatch described the suspects clothing as a white shirt and black shorts.
The deputies arrived at Diazs home within a minute of the dispatch, and approximately 10 to 15 minutes after Parra had called Diaz. Deputy Rodriguez saw Chandler (who is Black and tall) standing on a street corner 10 to 15 yards away from Diazs car, holding a cardboard box. Chandler was wearing a gray hooded sweater and white denim shorts.
When Chandler saw the patrol car, he put the box on the ground and ducked behind a vehicle. The deputies got out of the car and Chandler ran down a street into the residences backyards. Deputy Rodriguez and his partner contained the area and called for assistance from other units, but almost immediately Chandler jumped out from behind a residence into the alley and lay face down on the ground. Chandler did not resist when the deputies arrested him.
Deputy Rodriguez testified that he looked inside the cardboard box and saw tools. He then contacted Diaz and Parra. Diaz said the tools were his. Diazs car had damage to the drivers side door lock, which was punched in. The deputies took Chandler to the sheriffs station for booking. In his booking photograph, Chandler was wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt.
ANALYSIS
Chandler argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of receiving stolen property, because there was no evidence to show that he knew the box of tools was stolen. We examine "whether, viewing the whole record in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the record discloses substantial evidence—evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence." (People v. Conners (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 443, 452.)
Penal Code section 496, subsection (a) makes it a crime to "buy[] or receive[] any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft . . . ." "To sustain a conviction for receiving stolen property, the prosecution must prove: (1) the property was stolen; (2) the defendant knew the property was stolen (hereafter the knowledge element); and, (3) the defendant had possession of the stolen property." (People v. Russell (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1425.) Chandler does not dispute that the cardboard box containing tools was stolen, or that he had possession of the box. He argues only that the prosecution did not prove the second element, "knowledge that the property was stolen, which is a specific mental state." (Ibid.)
The evidence before the jury was that Chandler was holding the box of tools a short distance from Diazs burglarized car. When the deputies arrived, Chandler put the box on the ground and hid behind a vehicle. When the deputies got out of the patrol car, Chandler ran down the street into the backyards of the residences. Shortly thereafter, he jumped out into an alley and lay face down on the ground, without resisting arrest. Nevertheless, the evidence shows that he left the box behind and hid when the deputies arrived, fleeing when they got out of the patrol car.
The jury could reasonably have inferred from Chandlers behavior that he knew the box was stolen. "[H]is apparent flight [and] his discard of the [property] upon seeing the police officer" are circumstances entitling the jury to conclude that he had the requisite knowledge. (People v. Taylor (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 979, 983.) "`Possession of stolen property, accompanied by suspicious circumstances, will justify an inference that the property was received with knowledge that it had been stolen." (Id. at p. 984; cf. People v. Russell, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 1431 [substantial evidence of defendants lack of knowledge that motorcycle was stolen where "defendant acted as if he believed he was entitled to possess the motorcycle. He did not behave in a furtive manner or attempt to conceal the fact that he had taken the motorcycle"].)
Chandler emphasizes that his clothing did not match the description given on the police dispatch. But that evidence is only relevant to whether Chandler was the person committing the burglary, and the jury found him not guilty of that crime. He was caught holding the stolen property, and it was reasonable to infer from his discarding the box and running from the deputies that he knew it had been stolen. "An appellate court `must accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence." (People v. Conners, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 453 [finding substantial evidence that defendant knew money was stolen when he controlled the office facilitating the fraud, and kept a document from the fraudulent transaction in his home].) Chandlers claim of insufficient evidence is without merit.
Penal Code section 496, subsection (a) provides: "A principal in the actual theft of the property may be convicted pursuant to this section. However, no person may be convicted both pursuant to this section and of the theft of the same property." Nevertheless, "a defendant may be convicted both of burglary and of violating section 496 with respect to property he stole in the burglary." (People v. Allen (1999) 21 Cal.4th 846, 866.) The jury therefore could have convicted Chandler of both burglary and receiving stolen property.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
MALLANO, P.J.
ROTHSCHILD, J.