People v. Adegbenro CA2/8

Filed 6/6/16 P. v. Adegbenro CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B265513

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA432761) v.

JIHAD A. ADEGBENRO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael Garcia, Judge. Affirmed.

James C. Pettis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Shawn McGahey Webb and Ilana Herscovitz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

On appeal from his conviction of second degree robbery, defendant Jihad A. Adegbenro’s sole contention is that giving a flight instruction (CALCRIM No. 372) was prejudicial error. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Viewed in accordance with the usual rules on appeal (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357 (Zamudio)), the evidence established that the Versace store in the Beverly Center mall is entered through a pair of glass doors. Upon entry, the handbag display is on the customer’s right; the cash register is on the opposite side of the store, about 30 feet away. The job of a sales associate at the Versace store is to assist customers, who often have questions because the merchandise is expensive. Javier Valle was one of four sales associates working on January 8, 2015. In his experience, customers usually looked at handbags before picking them up. At about 4:00 p.m. that day, Valle was not working with any customers when he noticed defendant and another man enter the store together; they immediately turned right, towards the handbag display. Valle characterized what followed as a “grab and run.” First, Valle observed defendant’s companion grab two several-thousand-dollar handbags out of the window display. In response to Valle asking whether he needed help, the companion raised his fist to chest level and in an aggressive voice said, “ ’Get back, bro,’ ” while simultaneously tapping his pants pocket, which Valle understood to mean the companion “had something on him.” Frightened, Valle backed away. The companion ran out of the store with the two handbags. Next, defendant grabbed three handbags (also worth several thousand dollars apiece) and moved “aggressively towards the front of the store.” But defendant could not leave the store because Valle was standing in the doorway, blocking defendant’s way out. Valle called for the security guard, Ian Wanjohi. Defendant was still holding the three handbags when Wanjohi grabbed his arm and told him he had to wait for security. In response to defendant’s efforts to pull away, Wanjohi calmly repeated that it was going to be okay, they just needed to wait for security. A passerby entered the store and intervened. After a scuffle involving defendant, Wanjohi and the passerby, defendant