People v. Darnell CA1/4

Filed 4/28/16 P. v. Darnell CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A140224 v. GARRY RONALD DARNELL, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. Nos. SC076853; SC077133) Defendant and Appellant.

Garry Ronald Darnell appeals from a judgment upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of first degree robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 212.5); grand theft (§ 487); five counts of felony petty theft with a qualifying prior (§ 666); and one count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the court found true the allegations that the robbery constituted a serious and violent felony within the meaning of sections 1192.7, subdivision (c)(19) and 667.5, subdivision (c)(9), that defendant suffered seven prior convictions within the meaning of section 1203, subdivision (e)(4), and that he served two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the robbery conviction and that the court erred in its instructions to the jury. We affirm.

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

I. FACTS The evidence at trial showed that defendant committed five counts of felony petty theft on October 11, 2012 by stealing items from a number of unlocked cars parked in the Willows neighborhood in Menlo Park. Defendant conceded his guilt of these offenses during closing argument. The prosecutor also presented the following evidence: At approximately 9:00 p.m. on October 11, 2012, Alyssa Haught was returning to her Oak Court home after picking up her son at school. She parked her car in the driveway of her home and went into her home for a couple of minutes. She left the car doors unlocked, leaving her purse and backpack containing her laptop computer. When she returned to her car, she noticed that the inside dome light was on which was unusual as it should have been off—it stayed on for only a minute once the door was closed. She looked around and saw defendant walking away from the car. She followed him and noticed that he had her backpack in his hands. He was also wearing a backpack. She lost sight of him for a minute when he ducked behind a hedge adjacent to her neighbor’s long driveway. When she got to the hedge, she saw defendant leaning over her backpack. She asked defendant, “Is that my backpack?” Defendant stood up and angrily said, “No, Lady.” He left the backpack on the ground, pushed her very hard, and ran away quickly. He knocked Haught over, and she fell to the ground. Her hands bled, and she sustained bruising and scrapes. She also injured her knee. As defendant fled, Haught noticed that her wallet fell out of his backpack. Defendant’s hat had also fallen off as he ran. Haught picked up both her wallet and the hat and ran to her house. She was scared and yelled to her son to call 911. She also called 911. The police came to Haught’s home. The police told her that they might have located a suspect that matched the description she had given. She accompanied the police for an in-field identification. She identified the defendant as the perpetrator. She was able to identify several items that were recovered by the police as items that were taken from her car.