Shoplifting, Larceny, Robbery, Theft Felony Robbery!

[army judge]

The perp is more than likely some meth freak or crack head.

I doubt if he knows what his charges are.

They aren't "felony robbery", that's sure!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mightymoose]

I gave you guys the answer.
It is "petty with a prior" or "felony petty theft".

That is all assuming there are priors.
The burglary charge would be primary whether there were priors or not, and it is the most logical charge given the circumstances.

I think "felony petty theft" is a contradiction of terms, but yes, 666 would elevate a misdemeanor to a felony if there are priors.

 

[mightymoose]

No, he stole the property from the business. If he used force to escape with the goods, it could be charged as PC 211.

Robbery does NOT require the property first be taken from the immediate possession of a person.

Note that this is even included in the Jury Instructions from Calcrim:

[A (store/ [or] business) (employee/ <insert
description>) may be robbed if property of the (store/ [or]
business) is taken, even though he or she does not own the
property and was not, at that moment, in immediate physical
control of the property. If the facts show that the (employee/
<insert description>) was a representative of the
owner of the property and the (employee/ <insert
description>) expressly or implicitly had authority over the
property, then that (employee/ <insert description>)
may be robbed if property of the (store/ [or] business) is taken by
force or fear.]​

Hmm... interesting. From what is said, it does seem that there was no real use of force, just an attempt to run.

After I made that comment yesterday I went in to work to find a new subpoena in my box. It was for a burglary that occurred at an elementary school. The school had hired a private security guard due to recent burgs... late one night the security guard interrupted a burglary and chased a couple kids away... one of the kids smacked the guard with a stick as he rounded a corner. Though I wrote it up as a burglary, I noticed that the subpoena was for a 211... apparently due to the use of force as described here.

 

[CdwJava]

Hmm... interesting. From what is said, it does seem that there was no real use of force, just an attempt to run.

Very likely. But, assuming that he was charged with PC 211, the allegation likely includes some offensive action beyond just running or pulling away. However, as we all know, what a person is arrested for does not always meet the DA's scrutiny and the officer might have overcharged ... assuming that the suspect WAS booked or charged with 211.

After I made that comment yesterday I went in to work to find a new subpoena in my box. It was for a burglary that occurred at an elementary school. The school had hired a private security guard due to recent burgs... late one night the security guard interrupted a burglary and chased a couple kids away... one of the kids smacked the guard with a stick as he rounded a corner. Though I wrote it up as a burglary, I noticed that the subpoena was for a 211... apparently due to the use of force as described here.

I've had a couple of similar ones myself, but I don't recall any that crossed into 211 (likely because they were not fleeing with the goods). How would you like to be some poor unarmed security guard confronting burglars? Hole smokes!

It's not an uncommonly held perception even among peace officers that robbery has to be a tad more personal. There are a number of misconceptions that many of us operate under sometimes and correcting it involves training, experience, and exposure to different cases and legal interpretations. I have found that forums like these give me a lot of exposure to interpretations of the law as has nearly 20 years of experience. I have also discovered that what I believe to be true about the law does not always translate well to the laws in other states ... some states have some very odd interpretations of law (compared to what I know in CA) so I try to avoid saying that something is or is not the case about stuff outside of CA. I still come into contact with experienced officers here in CA that believe possession of a marijuana pipe falls under H&S 11364 and officers that for some reason think that a DS 367 can be issued for DUI drugs! It's all about experience, training, and exposure.