Misusing a California Handicap Parking Placard has always been punishable with a fine, but did you ever think about facing a $1000 fine and also being charged with petty theft? What many people forget is that not only does the California handicap placard allow you to park in convenient spots, you are also allowed to park free of charge. Imagine the revenue dollars that go uncollected via this mode of theft. On January 1, 2010, a new law will go into effect in California AB144 Handicap Placard Misuse, an act to amend Section 1465.6 of the Penal Code, and to amend Sections 22511.57 and 42001.13 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. Recently, the New York Times had an interesting article about AB144 "In California, a Fight Against Faux Disabilities and Fake Permits."
As January 1, 2010 approaches, we invite you to view an
Informational Video on Suspected Placard Abuse video and read a testimonial from one of our clients who was accused of misusing a stolen handicap placard.
"I was charged with Penal Code Sections 496 (Receiving Stolen Property) and 485 (Petty Theft of Lost Property). I was alleged to have received a stolen handicap parking placard and unlawfully appropriating it for my own use. I hired Attorney William W. Bruzzo to represent me in this matter. My most important concern was keeping my record clean as I am planning on becoming a teacher some day. After Mr. Bruzzo made several appearances in court without my being present, he was able to negotiate a dismissal with the District Attorney once I completed a class. I truly believe that without Mr. Bruzzo’s knowledge of the courts and the District Attorneys in Orange County I would not have had such a favorable result. I highly recommend Mr. Bruzzo for any Petty Theft or criminal matter." ~ RC, August 7, 2009
In today's economic environment many people are seeking employment and new career paths. Oftentimes job seekers are surprised to learn that prospective employers will not only secure a credit report on the applicant, but also a criminal record report. Employers become very selective and may never give an applicant a second glance if a criminal record exists. Your criminal record impacts your employment possibilities. Here is an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal.
If you have a criminal record, no matter how old you were at the time of the conviction, there are three different legal methods for cleaning up your criminal record. The first is an Expungement; the second is a Certificate of Rehabilitation; and the third is a Pardon.
Here is a real-life example of one client's experience when a past criminal record threatened to impact securing a state license for a new career.
CERTIFICATE OF REHABILITATION (California Penal Code Section 4852.01 and sequential)
"I was convicted of the criminal charge concerning conspiracy to sell a controlled substance under Health and Safety Code Section 11352 over 20 years ago in an Orange County Superior Court. I was sentenced to three years of formal probation, which I successfully completed, with a suspended state prison term of five years. I was 26 years old at the time and this has been the only criminal offense on my record. I applied to the Respiratory Care Board of California to become licensed as a respiratory therapist, but my application was denied as a result of my criminal record. This cut my salary in half. I was informed that to "clean" my record, I had to do an Expungement, Certificate of Rehabilitation and Pardon. A Certificate of Rehabilitation is the second step toward a Pardon. Mr. Bruzzo filed a Certificate of Rehabilitation on my behalf, which was GRANTED. Because it was granted, the Certificate of Rehabilitation became an automatic Pardon application. Mr. Bruzzo's legal knowledge and experience truly benefited me in my case." ~ GA Date:11/10/09
Two months ago, I was cited in Orange County for using my cell phone while driving. I was written up for a violation of California Vehicle Code Section 23123 and given a court date on which to appear. This Vehicle Code Section went into effect on July 1, 2008.
This law prohibits the use of handheld cellular phones while driving. However, a handheld cellular phone can be used during an emergency, to call the police, fire department or other emergency services.
A violation of this section constitutes an infraction, which is a petty violation of the law and is less serious than a misdemeanor. It is punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars for a first offense and fifty dollars for each subsequent offense. However, with the addition of penalty assessments, the fines can be more than triple the base fine amount.
The conviction appears on one's DMV driving record; however, the violation is not added as a point and therefore does not affect insurance premiums.
Today was the court trial for my citation. After the officer's testimony and presentation of all the evidence, the judge ruled I was NOT GUILTY of the above offense. I was able to show the court that I was not talking while holding my Blackberry in my hand. I demonstrated how my phone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking through Bluetooth. The law specifically allows for the use of one's phone if it's through a hands-free medium. Therefore, I fit the exception and walked out with a NOT GUILTY!
Last week in various cities in Orange County police officials set out to enforce curfew for minors 13 to 17 years old. A teenager can be out after curfew if they are with a parent, guardian or are otherwise exempted. The reason for the curfew is to curtail teenagers from being out after hours and participating in illegal activities. In particular it was intended to reduce gang activity and crimes by minors. The current sweep was conducted at 10p.m. or 11p.m. depending on the city's ordinance. According to the Los Angeles Times, Orange County Edition "college-bound students, gang members, a 13-year-old on probation for kidnapping and more than one drunk[en] teenager" were some of those collected during the sweep. The teens were kept in a bus until their parents came to pick them up. The article adds that some parents were unaware that their children were out while others had been looking for their kids. An Orange County Deputy District Attorney and officials from the Orange County Probation Department met with the parents of the teenagers and showed them photos of victims killed late at night. Legal consequences were also discussed and counselors from Pepperdine University masters program in counseling were on hand to talk to parents and their kids.
Here is a news video provided by Garden Grove TV3
Criminal Law Updates by the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
The head of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Tustin, California in Orange County, Clifford Polston, pled guilty to grand theft for stealing more than $114,000 from the group. The Boys & Girls Club of Tustin, which provides a safe place for youth to learn and grow, was shocked over the recent turn of events.
Polston took $6,323 in unauthorized car allowance and paid $75,000 to his wife for a fictitious job that he created. Now, as punishment for his crime, he has to repay $137,000 to the Boys & Girls Clubs of Tustin plus ten percent interest using proceeds from a life insurance policy purchased for him by the Club. Former mayor Tracy Worley Hagen said she feels "terrible" because she thought "he was doing a great job for the community", but she is "happy he's going to try to make it right with the Boys & Girls Club."
Grand theft, what Polston pled guilty to, differs from petty theft in that the value of the property stolen exceeds $400. Here, Polston stole well above that amount and received an enhanced sentence because of it. Typically, felony grand theft, defined by Penal Code Section 487, carries a maximum sentence of three years State Prison. However, in Polston's case, he was looking at a maximum of four years State Prison.
Criminal Law Updates by the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
Every hit and run case will have a slightly different outcome for the accused. Seeking legal representation or not can mean the difference between home confinement versus prison for a hit and run violation. Today we bring you a new testimonial from our client accused of four felony counts and facing a five year prison sentence.
"I was charged with felony hit and run (Vehicle Code Section 20001(a)) and three additional counts of felony reckless driving (Vehicle Code 23105(a). [Maximum Prison time of 5 years] I was alleged to have driven in a reckless manner injuring my four passengers and then left the scene. The District Attorney initially wanted to send me to prison. I hired Attorney William Bruzzo to represent me in this matter as I know he is an excellent attorney who fights for his clients. Mr. Bruzzo fought very hard for me with the result that I got the felony hit and run (Vehicle Code Section 20001(a) DISMISSED; I pled guilty to one count of reckless driving (Vehicle Code Section 23105(a) and I was permitted to do my time on home confinement. This was a very good result and I am very grateful to Mr. Bruzzo. I would enthusiastically recommend him for any criminal matter." ~~ KA 11/13/2009
An interrogation video of two teenage killers was recently released in Sacramento. 16-year-old Daniel Russell and 16-year-old Calvin Pearson broke into the home of Marie Oliver, a 90-year-old woman, and beat her to death using her cane. After breaking her nose, cheekbone, eye socket, and two of her ribs, they took off with some of her valuables from her North Sacramento home.
A shocking interrogation video of the two minors (see video link below) just three days after the killing shows them sharing a pizza and some Sprite while discussing how they attacked the woman back in April 2006. In the video, the teens laugh about the killing and say how they should have "been more careful." They question one another about whether the other snitched and show no remorse for their actions. They even go on to guess how much time they would get for the crime and one says: "Man, we're doin' at least a year, knock on wood we don't."
Unfortunately, the teens were way off in their speculations. The boys, who are now 18 and 19, were charged as adults for first-degree murder that carried special circumstance allegations of robbery and burglary and each received life in prison with no chance of parole.
Murder is defined by California Penal Code Section 187 as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. CalCrim Jury Instruction 521 defines first degree murder as one that is "willful, deliberate, and premeditated." In this case, the Prosecutor was able to show that the two boys intended to kill Ms. Oliver, carefully weighted the considerations and knowing the consequences, decided to kill her before actually doing so. Section 190 of the Penal Code states that, "Every person guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death, imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole, or imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 25 years to life." However, a serious charge such as this may be brought down to second degree murder or even manslaughter with the aid of an experienced criminal defense attorney.
The stories of Anthony Sowell (multiple bodies found in his home) and Phillip Garrido (kidnap victim living in his home since 1990s) have touched on the issue of monitoring registered sex offenders. Regular visits by parole to their homes did not lead to any discoveries that things were wrong. Garrido's officers would conduct searches of his home on surprise visits. In Ohio, Sowell's terms were to check in with parole and agents would show up to his residence to confirm he was still there but his terms did not include routine searches of his house. Questions now arise as to why all went unnoticed to officials in each case. There was an investigation into Garrido's parole officers in order to determine if agents missed signs of irregularities and whether incorrect training was also an issue. Whether these cases will motivate a reform effort on how sex offenders are monitored after incarceration is yet to be seen. Conducting a more in depth monitoring of sex offenders would require more time and man power and that of course means more money then states at this point might not have. If it is determined agents need to be retrained or the monitoring system updated with new rules to implemented, the next issue becomes getting the funds necessary to make the changes in an already cash strapped system.
Here Harry Smith of CBS News reports on this issue:
Criminal Law Updates by the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
A group of teenagers who call themselves the "Bling Ring" stole more than $3 million in merchandise from the homes of celebrities such as Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Audrina Patridge, Rachel Bilson, and Orlando Bloom.
One member of the ring has now come forward and helped put an end to this string of burglaries. Nicholas Frank Prugo gave police a statement implicating several others in the thefts at the homes of Hollywood's young celebrities.
The group was successful in committing these burglaries by surfing the Internet first to find out where the celebrities lived, then by watching the locations and working out ways to break-in. In many of the homes, the doors were even left unlocked.
California Penal Code 459 defines burglary as the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another with the intent to commit a felony inside. Even entering through an unlocked door constitutes a breaking and entering for purposes of a burglary if done without the owner's permission. This serious offense is punishable for up to 6 years in State Prison.
Criminal Law Updates by the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
30-year-old Fidel Galindo was arrested on October 22nd for attempting to break into an off-duty deputy's SUV in Laguna Niguel. The deputy chased Mr. Galindo down after seeing him near his SUV. When he finally caught up with him, he held him until Orange County Sheriff's Department deputies arrived.
Mr. Galindo was booked and is currently held on a $20,000 bail for attempted auto theft. California has two laws which address the theft of automobiles - Grand Theft Auto and Unlawful Taking/Driving of a Vehicle ("Joyriding"). Both may be charged either as a misdemeanor or felony depending on the facts of your case and if you have any similar prior convictions.
Penal Code 487(d) (1) defines grand theft auto (GTA) as intent to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle. This offense is typically prosecuted as a felony and subjects you to anywhere from 16 months to four years in State Prison as well as up to $10,000 in fines. The second law, Vehicle Code 10851 ("Joyriding"), requires intent to temporarily deprive the owner of the vehicle. This offense is typically charged as a misdemeanor and subjects you to a maximum of 1 year county jail.
If Mr. Galindo had broken into the car before he stole it, he may additionally be charged with auto burglary under Penal Code 459. However, if an experienced criminal defense attorney can prove that you didn't intend to deprive the owner of his/her car, you can't be convicted of GTA or vehicle theft.
Criminal Law Updates by Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
Elaina Kroll started a non-profit organization with a civil settlement she received from the Catholic Church resulting from her being molested by a music minister. The purpose of the non-profit is "to raise public awareness and implement prevention strategies around a silent epidemic". The organization includes the Victims Assistance Fund that helps pay for recovery treatment for victims. There is also a Survivors Speakers Bureau where survivors talk about their experiences with others regarding speaking out and the recovery process. The organization, the Innocence Mission, provides phone numbers for hotlines as well as community awareness discussions; they are also working on establishing an awareness project through media in 2010.
Criminal Law Updates by the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
The San Francisco Chronicle reported, November 4th, that state court officials have recommended Los Angeles and San Diego counties as possible sites for the murder trial of former Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police Officer Johannes Mehserle.
Mehserle resigned as a police officer in Oakland, California, after shooting 22-year-old Oscar Grant, who was unarmed on January 1, 2009 at a train station. Mehserle has said through his attorneys that he intended to use his Taser to subdue Grant, but mistakenly fired his pistol instead.
The location of the trial is extremely important in the potential outcome of this case. There is likelihood for jurors to be affected by protestors who view the case as part of a pattern of police abuse against people of color-- Mehserle is white and Grant was black.
Potential jurors are randomly selected from a fair cross-section of one's community; typically from voter registration or drivers' license lists. Los Angeles and San Diego counties both have large jury pools that differ in certain respects. According to a 2008 survey by the U.S. Census Bureau, 53 percent of Los Angeles County residents are white and 9 percent are black. In San Diego, 73 percent are white and 5 percent are black. Hence, the location of this trial may determine the perspective of any potential juror and therefore effect the outcome of the case.
Grant's family would prefer the trial take place in Los Angeles, a county whose diversity more closely mirrors the Bay Area. Whereas, the defense wants the case to take place in San Diego because it is known to be law enforcement friendly, which could benefit them. The judge has set a date for November 19 for both sides to argue their case. A decision is expected shortly after.
Southwestern University law professor, Robert Pugsley, states: "Where you try the case, and who you have on the jury, has everything to do with the outcome." Had the OJ Simpson case been filed in Santa Monica rather than Downtown Los Angeles, the Simpson jury would have been mostly white instead of, as was the case, mostly African-American. With poll data showing that most whites believed Simpson to be guilty and most blacks believing him to be not guilty, the decision to file the case in Santa Monica may have been the biggest mistake the prosecution made. The exact same case--in Santa Monica-- could have gotten Simpson a conviction. Final jury for the OJ Simpson trial had 10 women and 2 men, of which there were 8 blacks, 2 Hispanics, 1 half-Native American, half-white, and 1 white female. Jury selection may be the most important part of a criminal trial.
Criminal Law Updates by the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
Rodney Alcala has been charged with five murders that allegedly occurred during the 1970's. One charge is for the murder of Robin Samsoe who was 12 years old at the time of her disappearance from Huntington Beach. The other four murders are out of Los Angeles County and have been combined with the Orange County case. Mr. Alcala denies committing the Orange County murder and is pleading not guilty by reason of insanity to the Los Angeles cases. He has refiled a severance motion that will ask to separate the Los Angeles cases from the Orange County case. For the District Attorney taking care of many cases at once is a matter of efficiency; meanwhile, for the defense having them together hurts the client because it can paint a more heinous picture of the defendant.
To make a case for insanity the defense must prove a mental defect at the time of the crime. According to the Criminal Jury Instructions insanity is a defense when the deficiency has made the defendant unable to distinguish or understand that what he did was legally or morally wrong. Being addicted to drugs or alcohol does not qualify as being insane. Other instances that do not qualify as proof of insanity are adjustment disorders, personality disorders or deviant behavior based on the crimes. The defense attorney must prove during a trial that a defendant was insane at the time of the crime and the jury will decide if the evidence supports the claim of insanity. The insanity phase of a trial occurs after the Defendant has been found guilty of having committed the crime. Accordingly, in a trial with an insanity plea, there are two trials, one on the facts and the other on the question of whether the Defendant was insane at the time of the alleged offense. If a Defendant is found guilty on the facts of the crime but found insane at the time, then he will be in custody until he is declared sane by the state authorities. At no time will the Defendant be released prior to six months elapsing.
Criminal Law Updates by Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
16-year-old Marco Antonio Perez was sentenced on October 23, 2009, to a minimum of 50 years in state prison for a 2006 shooting that left two rival gang members dead and a third in a coma.
A jury in adult court found Perez guilty of two felony counts of special-circumstances murder for the benefit of a criminal street gang, one felony count of attempted murder and one felony count of street terrorism.
Perez was prosecuted as an adult for the execution-style shooting that took place in Santa Ana when he was 14 years old. Victims were ages 14, 15, and 16. Two other members of his gang have already been sentenced to multiple life sentences and the other three are awaiting trial.
Juveniles, or minors under the age of 18, can be prosecuted for any of the same crimes for which adults can be prosecuted. So, a child who is 14 years old can be tried in adult court for some serious crimes such as murder and attempted murder, setting fire to a building with people in it, robbery with a weapon, rape, kidnapping or carjacking, crimes with guns, drug crimes, and escaping from a juvenile detention facility without a hearing before a juvenile judge. Prop 21, which was passed in 2000, allows prosecution to direct file without a juvenile court judge making the determination as to whether the minor should remain in juvenile court or be transferred to adult criminal court. Only an experienced criminal defense attorney can then examine the possibility of transferring the minor from adult criminal court back to juvenile court for sentencing under the Reverse Remand Law, Penal Code Sections 1170.17 and 1170.19. The Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo has represented many Defendants to include juveniles charged with gang offenses (Penal Code Section 186.22)
Criminal Law Updates by Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
If you google or search the term "hit and run" you will find numerous reports regarding current cases in the news. Most of these cases are serious. They involve major property damage, personal injury or death. A few cases may involve celebrity figures as the alleged driver or injured party. Given the potential seriousness of a hit and run, you might be surprised to learn that some hit and run cases can be dismissed. In some instances an arrangement can be made where the client pays the injured party with the agreement that the injured party declare themselves satisfied and no longer want prosecution. Then, with the Judge and the District Attorney's agreement the case can be dismissed! This is called a civil compromise.
Here is a testimonial of one client's family member...
"A Member of my family was charged with hit and run as a misdemeanor (Vehicle Code Section 20002) which carries a maximum sentence of 6 months in jail and a fine of $1,000.00; he was also charged with reckless driving (Vehicle Code Section 23103) which carries a maximum of 90 days in jail and a $1,000.00 fine. These charges arose when he struck two other cars in traffic and fled the scene. We hired Mr. Bruzzo while the police were still investigating the crime and before the matter went to court. Mr. Bruzzo acted as our liaison with the police and he instructed us that all communication should go through him. When the matter finally went to court Mr. Bruzzo appeared in court without us and began negotiating the matter with the District Attorney. Mr. Bruzzo also began speaking with the victims in the case. In the end Mr. Bruzzo was able to negotiate a disposition wherein the victim(s) accepted a certain amount of money and the District Attorney agreed to DISMISS THE CASE. I am truly grateful to Mr. Bruzzo for his representation in this matter as it spared my family member possible jail time and a conviction. I would enthusiastically recommend Mr. Bruzzo for any criminal matter." ~~PP January 13, 2009
California was one of the first to adopt the Three Strikes Law in 1994 - the law which can send a repeat offender to prison for 25 years to life when he/she is convicted of a third strike.
The Three Strikes law significantly increases the prison sentences of persons convicted of felonies who have been previously convicted of two violent crimes or serious felonies, such as: murder, robbery of a residence in which a deadly or dangerous weapon is used, rape and other sex offenses, burglary of a residence and assault with intent to commit a robbery or rape and murder. Although the prior strikes have to be serious violent crimes, the third strike does not have to be such. So a person can go to prison for 25 years to life for shoplifting golf clubs if he/she already has two prior strikes.
California's counties tend to enforce the Three Strikes Law in different ways. Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, who supports the law, almost never charges a nonviolent offense as a third strike. But just 100 miles north in Kern County, District Attorney Ed Jagels almost always does and explains, "I don't know one of these individuals who wouldn't have re-offended had he gotten a short sentence instead of a longer one."
District Attorney Jagels prosecuted a man who was arrested for stealing a pack of doughnuts worth about a dollar. Because this man had two strikes for robbery, he faced 25 years to life for the doughnuts. But it's highly unlikely that the doughnut guy would be prosecuted with a third strike in Los Angeles County. The Orange County District Attorney falls somewhere in the middle. They might allege a relatively minor offense as a third strike but then agree to remove it later as part of a plea deal so that the Defendant is not looking at a life sentence.
While Los Angeles District Attorney Cooley almost never charges a nonviolent offense as a third strike, he supports the three strikes law but just thinks it needs to be changed or it will not last. More than likely though, the three strikes law is unlikely to be changed anytime soon. It has become iconic in our state's criminal justice system-- "Three Strikes and You're Out."
Criminal Law Updates by the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
A jury has convicted Jeffrey Woods of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence while intoxicated PC 191.5 (a) for the incident occurring in August of 2007. The truck Woods was driving crashed into the side walk and hit a 14-year old on his bike. Woods was on Vicodin and Xanax while also text messaging and driving recklessly, a deadly combination. The defense argued that Woods has epilepsy and that it was a seizure that made him lose control of the vehicle. The argument then becomes whether it was the drugs and multitasking during driving that caused the accident or if it was a seizure. According to the Criminal Jury instructions the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty. Meanwhile, the defense presents an alternative reasonable conclusion that points to the innocence of the defendant. The O.C. Register article on the case quoted a juror who explained that "there were some inconsistencies with the amount of seizures and whether they did happen or didn't happen". The evidence presented by the defense was not enough to sway the jury to another reasonable explanation for what happened.
Mr. Woods faces up to 10 years in prison for this offense.
Criminal Law Updates by Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
If you were an avid fan of Seinfeld or if you enjoy watching syndicated Seinfeld reruns, then you will probably remember the famous episode called "The Bookstore." This is episode 173 from the 9th season, which aired originally April 9, 1998. Like all Seinfeld episodes, this episode had numerous plotlines, but who can forget when Jerry discovers that Uncle Leo is shoplifting and even Jerry's parents defend Uncle Leo's behavior saying something like "it is not stealing, if you need it!" While we might laugh at this over-the-top sitcom, the truth is being accused of shoplifting is no laughing matter. And in California shoplifting is usually charged as petty theft.
Should you be arrested for petty theft in Orange County, California, be sure to seek legal counsel. William Bruzzo is the senior attorney in the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo and he has been a practicing attorney since 1993. Here is one client's testimonial regarding being charged with petty theft and his case outcome.
"I was accused of petty theft [a violation of Penal Code Section 484(a)-488 a misdemeanor] and told to appear in the Orange County Superior court. It was alleged that I took an item from Sears without paying for it.
I hired Mr. Bruzzo because of his years of experience in the Orange County courts and his familiarity with all the District Attorneys. I knew that only a lawyer practicing in Orange County for quite some time would be able to get me the result I desired.
I am a nursing school graduate and have hopes of becoming a licensed nurse one day. The criminal charges against me were keeping me from pursuing this dream. Any conviction for a theft offense could have resulted in the end of my career. Thankfully, Mr. Bruzzo was able to get me a complete DISMISSAL after just a few court appearances. All I had to do was complete a short class and give a DNA sample. Mr. Bruzzo took care of everything from the beginning to the end. Thanks to him, my record is clean.
I am happy to recommend Mr. Bruzzo to anyone facing a criminal charge, especially petty theft." ~~ MO, June 5, 2009
A man and a woman were arrested for committing a string of robberies in Santa Ana while impersonating police officers. Robbers were acting like cops. The individuals suspected are charged with robbing nearly $2,000 from five victims during four separate incidents in one month. Police are still looking for the third suspect.
During the robberies, one of the suspects was wearing a security-type uniform and carried a handgun. The other suspect wore all black clothing and a jacket that said SECURITY. Santa Ana Police Commander said, "The suspects' demeanor was that of police officers and the victims did not realize they were being robbed until the suspects fled with their money."
Robbery, a felony, may be punished by 3 to 6 years in State Prison. California Penal Code Section 211 defines robbery as the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear. Fear means fear of injury to oneself or the person's family or property or to someone in one's company. The value of the property taken does not matter.
An important element for robbery to be established is force or fear. Only an experienced criminal defense attorney can present a robbery defense by demonstrating that no force or fear was used to take the property or to prevent the victim from resisting. See also Penal Code Sections 211, 212.5 and 213; Criminal Law Updates from the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
