Filed 4/30/15 P. v. Valenzuela CA2/6 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 SIX 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

LUIS VALENZUELA, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

2d Crim. No. B256440 

(Super. Ct. No. 2013025724) 

(Ventura County) 

 Luis Valenzuela appeals from the judgment following his 

conviction by jury of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)), as a lesser 

included offense of second degree robbery (id. at § 211); and street terrorism (id.

at § 186.22, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to state prison for nine 

years, eight months. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to 

support his grand theft conviction. We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 On July 14, 2013, appellant and a younger companion, Timothy 

Medina, flagged down Manny Ramirez as he rode his black beach cruiser bike 
2 

down Collins Street in Oxnard. Ramirez stopped and spoke with them. 

Appellant asked Ramirez where he was from. Ramirez said he had just moved 

from Santa Barbara. Appellant asked if he was from East Side and said he did 

not like "homies from East Side." East Side Santa Barbara is a Santa Barbara 

street gang. Ramirez said he was not affiliated with any gang. Appellant swung 

at Ramirez, and tried to punch him. To avoid being hit, Ramirez stepped back, 

and away from his bike. Appellant grabbed Ramirez's bike and said, "[T]his is 

my bike now." He also said that if Ramirez wanted the bike, he could go to 417 

Collins Street, and would need to have an "older homie from the neighborhood 

vouch" for him. Medina said, "[i]f you want your bike back, you'll have to throw 

down or fight for it." Ramirez left. Appellant walked toward his home at 417 

Collins Street with Medina. 

 On the same day, Ventura County Sheriff Deputies Jeff Jacobs and 

David Schwieder responded to reports of the theft. They spoke to Ramirez, who 

described the incident, his bike and the suspects. Ramirez also expressed fear 

about getting "jumped or beat up" and being labeled "a rat." The deputies 

recovered Ramirez's bike from appellant's house. The bike was repainted and its 

frame had "little globules" of damp, sticky reddish-brown spray paint. 

DISCUSSION 

 Appellant contends there is not sufficient evidence to support his 

grand theft conviction. We disagree. 

 In reviewing claims of insufficient evidence, we examine the entire 

record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether there is 

substantial evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value from which a 

reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable 

doubt. (People v. Maciel (2013) 57 Cal.4th 482, 514-515.) We do not reweigh 

the evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses. (People v. Houston (2012) 
3 

54 Cal.4th 1186, 1215.) We "'presume in support of the judgment the existence 

of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. . . . A 

reversal for insufficient evidence "is unwarranted unless it appears 'that upon no 

hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support'" the jury's 

verdict. . . .' [Citation.]" (People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87.) 

 Grand theft requires that property be taken from the person of 

another, with the intent to deprive the person of his property. (§ 487, subd.(c); In 

re Jesus O. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 859, 862.) "Evidence of intent to commit a theft 'is 

rarely demonstrated by direct proof, and as a result, may be inferred from facts 

and circumstances.' [Citation.]" (People v. Hussain (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 

261, 273.) "When someone, intending to steal, causes property to become 

separated from the victim's person, then gains possession of the property, the 

theft is from the person." (In re Jesus O., supra, at p. 861.) 

 Here appellant claims that there was not sufficient evidence that he 

formed the intent to steal before he swung at Ramirez. The record belies his 

claim. Ramirez stepped away from his bike only to avoid appellant's fist. 

Appellant quickly grabbed the bike and said, "It's my bike now." Before leaving 

with Ramirez's bike, appellant and Medina told Ramirez that he would need to go 

to appellant's house to get it, and to fight for it. Such facts and circumstances 

support the inference that appellant intended to steal the bike before he swung at 

Ramirez. (In re Jesus O., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 861.) We also reject appellant's 

claim that the jury's acquitting him of robbery establishes he lacked the intent to 

steal, a requisite element of grand theft. We will not speculate about why the 

jury acquitted appellant of robbery. Regardless of its reason, there is sufficient 

evidence to support his grand theft conviction. 
4 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. 

 PERREN, J. 

We concur: 

 GILBERT, P .J. 

 YEGAN, J. 
Nancy L. Ayers, Judge 

Superior Court County of Ventura 

______________________________ 

 The Law Office of John Derrick, John Derrick, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. 

Roadarmel, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy 

Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.