Southern California Defense Blog

According to the Orange County Register, five men have been accused with robbing a former mortgage lender at his Newport Coast mansion on December 8, 2009. One was arraigned on December 11, 2009. Two posted bail and were arraigned on January 26, 2010, and warrants have been issued for the other two suspects.

Each suspect has been charged with one felony count of conspiracy to commit robbery, two felony counts of kidnapping to commit robbery, five felony counts of first degree robbery in concert, and six felony counts of assault with a firearm.

According to prosecutors, the five men met up at a grocery store parking lot before the robbery. Then, three of the men went inside the house, tied up the houseguests, and pistol-whipped at least two of them; a third went to the hospital for his injuries.

Continue reading "Five Accused in Newport Beach Robbery - California Penal Code Section 211" »

James Tyrell Harris, a South Los Angeles anti-gang activist, was arrested for allegedly misappropriating $85,000 in city funds. While serving as chairman and treasurer of the Empowerment Congress Southwest Area Neighborhood Development Council, Harris is said to have made unauthorized withdrawals and purchases for travel expenses and hiring his daughter for administrative work.

Harris already has two prior felony convictions for robbery in Los Angeles during the 1980s. Although Harris could face up to 25 years to life in prison because of the two previous strikes, Los Angeles prosecutors believe this is unlikely because the nature of the crime was not violent. Harris is not the first neighborhood council member to be accused of misappropriating funds in Los Angeles; four others within the last two years have also been charged. These recent trends have alerted officials of the need for more supervision of Los Angeles neighborhood councils given city funds.

Continue reading "Los Angeles Neighborhood Councilman Facing Felony Charges for Misusing City Funds" »

California Penal Code 211 states the following: “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.”

The Code continues to define the two types of robbery crimes in California – first and second degree. The difference is covered in Penal Code 212.5. Essentially, first degree robbery covers robbery of a person driving a vehicle, robbery of a person using an ATM, and robbery of a person at their home. Second degree robbery covers all other forms of robbery.

Both first and second degree robbery count as strikes. A strike is a crime that is most likely to be punished by significant time in prison. Also, if you have a strike conviction on your criminal record, any future crime you might commit will be punishable for double the normal amount of time in prison.

Continue reading "What is the Difference between First and Second Degree Robbery?" »

Connie Keel was charged with first-degree murder for participating as an aider and abettor in the robbery of a liquor store that resulted in the death of the store clerk. Keel was convicted of murder in California at her 1981 trial, even though she was never accused of killing anyone with her own hands. To this day, Keel claims that she had no idea that her husband and cousin intended to rob the liquor store. However, under California’s Felony Murder Rule, prosecutors successfully charged her with first-degree murder. The penalty for first-degree murder is 25 years to life.

The Felony Murder Rule allows prosecutors to charge a defendant with first degree murder, if any homicide is committed during the course of specified felonies—such as robbery, rape, and burglary. An aider and abettor is anyone who helps the principal offender commit the crime. Keel is alleged to have waited in the getaway car while her husband and cousin robbed, and ultimately shot and killed the liquor store clerk.

The Felony Murder Rule is inscribed in California Penal Code Section 189. It states in pertinent part that “all murder… which is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping…, is murder of the first degree.” California also recognizes the offense of second-degree murder, punishable by sentences of 15 years to life, for homicides committed during the course of other felonies not referred to in the statute but deemed “inherently dangerous to human life.”

Continue reading "Under California's Felony Murder Rule, an Unarmed, First-Time Offender Served 29 Years in Prison for Waiting in a Getaway Car During a Robbery" »

A California Appellate Court affirmed once again that a person convicted of theft in California cannot also be convicted of receiving stolen property when the property in question is the property of the theft. The courts have long recognized that a crime of theft and/or robbery is the taking of personal property of another.

Now, if you are the individual who took that property, you cannot also be found guilty of the crime of receiving stolen property because the property in question is one in the same. In a recent decision, the California Appellate Court added carjacking to the list of thefts, where the Court held that a defendant could not be convicted of both carjacking and receipt of stolen property when the stolen property is the vehicle taken in the carjacking.

In the instant case, the Defendant was not sentenced on the receipt of stolen property, and the ruling court treated the charge of receiving stolen property in violation of Penal Code section 496 as a lesser included offense to the carjacking. The Appellate court held that to treat it as a lesser included offense is not correct. Rather, that if the Defendant was found guilty of carjacking, he must be acquitted of the charge of receiving stolen property.

If you or someone you know is being accused of a theft crime, you must be aware that there will likely be an incorrect charge of receipt of stolen property. This will have to be fought, and the best option will be to hire an experienced San Diego criminal defense attorney. Wallin & Klarich has been fighting for people accused of theft crimes for years. If you would like to speak to one of our experienced criminal defense attorneys, just call 1-888-280-6839, or visit our website, www.wklaw.com for more information.

California Supreme Court Confirms Its Position on Robbery Issue, Meaning You Need an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney

The California Supreme Court recently clarified a conflict in the Court of Appeal concerning whether, for purposes of Robbery, all employees have constructive possession of the employer’s property while on duty and thus may be separate victims of the employer’s business. The court held that all employees on duty during a robbery in California DO in fact have constructive possession of their employer’s property and therefore any employee on duty can be a separate victim of the robbery, thus increasing the likelihood of longer prison sentences for those convicted of robbery where multiple employees are on duty.

In the case at issue, People v Scott, Defendants Andre Scott and Maurice Kenney were each charged with three counts of Robbery based on a single incident which was the early morning robbery of a McDonald’s in Sacramento. The three alleged victims were employees on duty at the restaurant that morning. One of the employees was working the drive-thru window and when she saw two masked men enter the restaurant, one with a gun, she immediately ducked down and hid under the grill where she remained for the duration of the incident of theft in California. Another employee was preparing food in the back when the robbery started and she hid under a table for the duration of the robbery. The third employee, a manager, was the only employee with access to the safe and was directed to the safe where she opened it and placed money in a bag along with a tracking device that the suspects made off with. The suspects were apprehended shortly thereafter when police located them using the tracking device.

During trial, the Defense argued that the two employees who did not have access to the safe were not proper victims of the robbery because they did not have constructive possession of the money and therefore only one charge of robbery was proper as to the manager who did have access to the safe. The District Attorney argued that all three of the employees had constructive possession of the property because they were all engaged in performing their duties at the time of the robbery.

The Trial Court agreed with the DA and the Supreme Court affirmed that the conclusion that employees have constructive possession of their employer’s property when they are present during a robbery is consistent with a long line of cases involving the constructive possession issue and also consistent with the intent of the legislature. As a result of this case, Defendant Scott was sentenced to 116 years, 8 months to life in prison and Defendant Kenney was sentenced to a term of 30 years, 8 months. This case clarifies just how serious robbery cases are and will ensure lengthier sentences for those convicted of a robbery where multiple employees are present.

If you or anyone you know is being suspected of committing robbery, it is essential that an experienced California criminal defense attorney be contacted, such as those at Wallin & Klarich. Contact Wallin & Klarich today at 1-888-280-6839. Also, visit us online at www.wklaw.com to learn more about your case and what can be done.