People v. Thompson CA4/1

Filed 6/18/24 P. v. Thompson CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D081996

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD296361)

JOSEPH ARTHUR THOMPSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia A. Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed. Britton Donaldson, 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, Eric Swenson and Elana Miller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Wearing “extra big” dark sunglasses on a cloudy October morning, Joseph Arthur Thompson walked into a bank, wrote a note, and passed it to a bank teller. The note read, “This is a robbery.” Shocked, the teller activated the silent alarm. Within minutes, the police responded and had Thompson under arrest. He admitted he passed the note because he needed money and he wanted “[w]hatever he could get” from the bank. A jury convicted him of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664 & 211) and the trial court sentenced

him to a three-year prison term.2 He appeals, asserting there was insufficient evidence he used fear in his attempt to take the bank’s money. We affirm. Attempted robbery requires a specific intent to commit robbery and a direct but ineffectual act toward commission of the crime. (People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 488−489.) Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear. (Id. at p. 489.) To establish a robbery was committed by means of fear, the prosecution must present evidence the victim was in fact afraid, and that such fear allowed the crime to be accomplished. (People v. Morehead (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 765, 774 (Morehead).)