People v. Jackson

LILLIE, J.—

Defendant was convicted of robbery by the trial court; he was found not to be personally armed at the

[471]

time of the commission of the offense. He appeals from the judgment of conviction claiming among other things that “there was to

[sic-]

much flaws in this case for conviction”; but his sole claim of error seems to be the insufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. His argument consists primarily of a recital of testimony he believes to be favorable to the defense.

While defendant admitted that a robbery took place and that he was present, he denied he was a willing participant. There is much dispute concerning certain material facts; and presented on the record before us is the all too common situation of the trial judge, after hearing and observing the witnesses and weighing their testimony, accepting the People’s version of what occurred and rejecting defendant’s testimony.

(People

v.

Murrie,

168 Cal.App.2d 770 [336 P.2d 559].) It is the sole province of the trial judge to determine the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence and resolve all factual conflicts.

(People

v.

Robles,

183 Cal.App.2d 212 [6 Cal.Rptr. 748];

People

v.

Gardner,

177 Cal.App.2d 43 [1 Cal. Rptr. 830].) Thus, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to respondent

(People

v.

Caritativo,

46 Cal.2d 68 [292 P.2d 513]), we are satisfied that defendant was an accomplice of the man who robbed the gas station attendant with the use of a shotgun and, therefore, a principal in the commission of the robbery. (Pen. Code, § 31.)