People v. Hernandez CA4/1
Filed 8/1/25 P. v. Hernandez CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D084189
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE420474)
CHRISTOPHER HERNANDEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Patricia K. Cookson, Judge. Affirmed. William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Liz Olukoya, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Christopher Hernandez robbed two loss prevention officers at a Home Depot store and one at a Macy’s department store. A jury convicted Hernandez of three robberies and the trial court sentenced him to four years in prison. On appeal, Hernandez argues the trial court violated Penal Code section 654 when it imposed concurrent sentences for both Home Depot
robbery convictions.1 Because the robberies involved two separate victims, the court’s decision to impose both sentences was appropriate under the multiple victim exception that applies to section 654. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Around 8:45 p.m., J.T. and B.C. were on duty as loss prevention officers for Home Depot. J.T. saw Hernandez and was suspicious Hernandez was shoplifting because he was constantly looking down, looking over his shoulder, looking to see if someone was watching him, and being “very furtive.” Hernandez was holding a black backpack and walking towards the power tools aisle. He had two pieces of merchandise under his arm. J.T. called B.C. to notify him about Hernandez’s suspicious behavior and B.C. began watching Hernandez. In the power tool aisle, Hernandez took a power grinder from the display rack and put it into his backpack along with the two other electrical tools he had been carrying under his arm. J.T. followed Hernandez and told B.C. he was going to wait outside for Hernandez and potentially approach him. B.C. continued watching Hernandez. Hernandez walked past the registers and self-checkout, and did not pay for the items in his backpack or leave the tools anywhere in the store. As Hernandez reached the exit, B.C. followed behind him and J.T. waited outside the store.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)