People v. Hughes CA1/5

Filed 10/5/20 P. v. Hughes CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, A158260 Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Francisco City and County v. Super. Ct. Nos. 18001036 / SEMEGREIAN HUGHES, 228650) Defendant and Appellant.

After Semegreian Hughes stole a pair of sunglasses from an eyewear shop and struck the 69-year-old shop owner on the head, a jury convicted him of second-degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)),1 assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), and misdemeanor elder abuse (§ 368, subd. (c)). Hughes contends that his right to a speedy trial was violated, the trial court erroneously admitted evidence that he had shoplifted on two prior occasions, and the record contains insufficient evidence to support his misdemeanor elder abuse conviction. We conclude his contentions lack merit and affirm the judgment.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1

BACKGROUND One rainy day, Hughes opened the door to an optometry shop in San Francisco, stepped inside, and grabbed a pair of sunglasses from a display in the front window. The shop owner, Robert K., was working in the back of the store at the time and asked Hughes if he could help him find something. Hughes responded that he had found what he was looking for and left the store without paying for the sunglasses. When Robert tried to catch up to him, Hughes turned and hit him on the side of the head, knocking him to the ground. Christine S. witnessed the incident and called 911. At trial, Hughes argued that the prosecution could not establish the elements of robbery because, in light of his mental disorder, he did not intend to permanently deprive Robert of his property. The parties stipulated that Hughes suffered a traumatic brain injury in 1999. Hughes also presented evidence that he suffered from transitory periods of psychosis in which he experienced hallucinations and delusions, and that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and schizoaffective disorder. However, the prosecution argued that Hughes behaved rationally when he walked into the shop, responded to Robert’s question, and struck Robert when he tried to retrieve the sunglasses. The prosecution also put on evidence that Hughes had shoplifted in the past and argued that the prior incidents showed that Hughes similarly intended to steal when he took the sunglasses. With respect to the elder abuse charge, Hughes contended that he could not have known that Robert was over the age of 65 because their interactions occurred in a matter of seconds.