Source: https://www.kannlawoffice.com/robbery.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:40:56+00:00

Document:
California Penal Code (CPC) §211 – Robbery – California's Robbery law makes it a crime use threats or force to take someone else's property against that person's will. To be guilty, you must've decided to commit Robbery before taking the property.
Robbery is a Felony punished in First and Second Degrees. If convicted of First Degree Robbery, you face up to nine years in state prison. If convicted of the Second Degree form, you can serve up to five years in a state prison. You also face fines of up to $10,000 or fines and a prison sentence with both forms.
What Does California Penal Code §211 (Robbery) Prohibit?
Your intent was to permanently deny the owner use or enjoyment of the property.
Intended/Permanently Deprive: You intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property or to remove the property it long enough that the owner would be denied a major portion of its value or enjoyment of it.
Example: A small-time thief, Defendant Dane, is looking for a victim inside a bar and restaurant. He approaches Victim Vanya and buys her a drink that he “spikes” with a drug just before giving to her. Vanya becomes sleepy and begins to nod off; Dane reaches into her purse and takes a $50 bill. Waiter sees Dane take the money and calls police, who arrest Dane under CPC §211. Should he be convicted?
Conclusion: Dane took a fifty dollar bill that wasn't his. The money was in Vanya's possession at the time and, since the bill was in Vanya's purse, the money was in Vanya's immediate presence. Since Vanya had no prior relationship with Dane (and since Dane had to drug Vanya to get the money) we can assume that the bill was taken against Vanya's will. Furthermore, drugging someone is considered a form of force; giving Vanya the drug is, at minimum, a form of illegal Battery, requiring use of force. Finally, Dane, we can assume, wanted to take the money permanently, since he is a thief. Dane should be convicted on these facts.
As noted previously, Robbery is a Felony punishable in two degrees under California law.
If you're convicted of the First Degree form of Robbery, you face up to nine (9) years in a state prison, a fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars), or both a fine and jail time. If convicted of Robbery in the Second Degree, you face up to five (5) years in a state prison, a fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars), or both a fine and jail time.
Note, however, that Robbery can be aggravated in several ways which can result in enhanced sentences. If, for example, you do something producing great bodily injury during a Robbery, you can be sentenced to an additional six (6) years in a state prison. Furthermore, if you intentionally use and fire a gun in the commission of Robbery and it produces great bodily injury, you can be sentenced to prison for life.
You should also remember that Robbery is punishable under California's “Three Strikes” law. If you're convicted of two serious or deadly felonies and then you commit a Robbery, you can be sentenced to a minimum of twenty-five (25) years in a state prison.
Example: Neighbor asks Defendant Dean if Dean wants to take and keep Neighbor's old lawnmower, which Neighbor plans on replacing, but Dean doesn't go to take the lawnmower until the following day, when Neighbor is at work. Dean enters through the open garage door. Neighbor's husband, Victim Vincent, sees Dean enter the garage and confronts him. (Neighbor neglected to tell Vincent about Dean coming to take the used lawnmower.) They begin to struggle. Dean eventually pulls the lawnmower handle from Vincent's hands and shouts, “It's mine now, Vince! I want it!” as he rushes home. Vincent calls the police and reports Dean for Robbery under CPC §211. Should Dean be convicted?
Conclusion: Dean took property that belonged to another person from the immediate presence of one of the owners. (The lawnmower would be considered the community property of Neighbor and Vincent, without further facts.) The property, held by Vincent when pulled from his hands, was in Vincent's possession. Vincent didn't want Dean to take it. Additionally, Dean used force to pull the lawnmower from Vincent's hands and Dean made it clear that he intended on permanently keeping it (“It's mine now!”). But Dean was offered the lawnmower by Vincent's husband; that Neighbor forgot to tell Vincent about it doesn't deny Dean a valid reason for believing he had the right to take the property. Dean, therefore, shouldn't be convicted of Robbery.
Example: A robbery is reported in Defendant Dominic's neighborhood. The suspect, it's reported, wears a heavy black jacket and black pants. No other details are provided. Dominic is wearing a dark jacket and black jeans while walking down the street. A police car approaches him. Two officers accost Dominic and arrest him for Robbery under CPC §211, ignoring Dominic's protests. Later, when Dominic meets with his lawyer, he insists that the whole thing is just a case of mistaken identity. Should he be convicted?
Conclusion: While someone may have committed a Robbery, the facts make it clear that Dominic did nothing illegal; he was simply walking in his own neighborhood when police received a sparsely-detailed complaint. Law enforcement then acted without certainty and, as a result, Dominic was confused with the actual offender in a simple case of mistaken identity. He should be acquitted of Robbery under §211.
Example: Defendant Dylan is hired to steal business intelligence from Victim Vadim's company. Dylan follows Vadim and determines that Vadim keeps his most sensitive secrets inside a case that he carries with him at all times. Dylan gets an identical case. He follows Vadim to a train stop, sits beside Vadim, places the identical case beside Vadim's own and waits. When the next train arrives, Dylan, pretending that he's about to board, takes Vadim's case instead of his own. Later, when Vadim discovers the theft, he goes to Station Police. They review video footage, determine who Dylan is and what he did, and have Dylan arrested for Robbery under §211. Should Dylan be convicted of the charge?
Conclusion: Dylan took property that belonged to Vadim. Dylan also took it from Vadim's immediate presence, and, we can assume, against Vadim's will, since Vadim's case contained important business intelligence that Dylan was paid to steal. The case, at his feet, was in Vadim's immediate possession. Finally, since Dylan was paid to steal from Vadim, it follows that Dylan intended to permanently deprive Vadim of the case and its contents. However, while Dylan can be accused of a crime like Larceny by Trick, he used neither fear nor force to obtain Vadim's case. Dylan shouldn't be convicted of Robbery.
Example: Defendant Dina's ex-husband, Victim Vinton, is angry that Dina has custody of their children. Vinton hatches a plot to get custody of the kids by making Dina out to be a dangerous person. He tells police that Dina broke into his home and stole cash from him at gunpoint. He fabricates several details meant to establish the truth of his story. The police believe Vinton and arrest Dina. She's charged under CPC §211. Dina insists that the accusation simply isn't true. Should Dina be convicted of the charge?
Conclusion: As the facts state, while Dina's ex-husband told a story full of details, Vinton made up the tale in order to pry the children from Dina's care. It's elementary that no one in the United States should be convicted of a crime that she or he didn't commit. On these facts, were she to be convicted, Dina would be punished for something she simply didn't do. Since the prosecution can't establish even one element of the offense, Dina must be acquitted. The accusation against her is false.
Note: The crimes below are described as “related” because they're frequently charged with CPC §211 and/or have common elements that the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
The California Penal Code includes several offenses related to Robbery, including: Grand Theft (CPC §487(a),(d)(2)), Petty Theft (CPC §488), Receiving Stolen Property (CPC §496(a)), Extortion (CPC §518(a)), Burglary (CPC §459), Kidnapping (CPC §207(a)), Carjacking (CPC §215(a)), Grand Theft Auto (CPC §487(d)(1)), Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle (California Vehicle Code [CVC] §10851(a)), and Joyriding (CPC §499(a)).
California's statute criminalizing Grand Theft (CPC §487(a), (d)(2)) applies whenever property worth more than $950 dollars is stolen or a firearm is taken from its rightful owner. Grand Theft does not require the use of fear or force. You must, however, move the property and keep it for some period.
Since California punishes Theft in two degrees (Grand and Petty), the facts surrounding your case will determine the severity of the charge. Depending on the particulars, the prosecutor can choose to charge you with a Misdemeanor or a Felony. This makes Grand Theft a “wobbler” crime. Grand Theft is related to Robbery because goods of significant value are often taken in robberies.
Note: You can also commit Grand Theft by stealing from a property owner's authorized agent.
You can find more information in the California Grand Theft Lawyer section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer - guaranteed.
You took someone else's property without the owner's (or the owner's agent's) permission. The property was worth more than $950 or was a firearm. When you took the property you intended on taking it permanently or removing it for long enough that the owner would lose a major portion of its value or enjoyment of it. Finally, you moved the property and kept it for some amount of time.
Example: Defendant Deandra has a neighbor called Victim Victor. Deandra really likes Victor's expensive bicycle ($2000) and often asks Victor if she can ride it around their block. Victor always says no. One day, Victor leaves the garage door open while he's inside his house. The bicycle is in the garage. Deandra enters and jumps onto the bike. She moves the bike a few feet and is about to ride down the block just as Victor emerges and yells for her to stop. Deandra does. Victor calls the police and reports Deandra for Grand Theft. Deandra insists she didn't intend on stealing the bike. Should Deandra be convicted?
Conclusion: Victor's bicycle cost well over $950 and Deandra took the bike without Victor's permission. She moved the bike and had it in her possession for a brief period. However, as the facts state, Deandra wanted to ride the bike around the block. She did not intend on permanently denying him ownership or even substantial enjoyment of the bicycle. Deandra, it follows, should be acquitted of Grand Theft.
California's statute on Petty Theft (CPC §488) makes it a crime to commit Theft which isn't some form of Grand Theft. This includes theft of property worth less than $950 and theft of items other than firearms. Petty Theft is related to Robbery because goods of small value are often taken in robberies.
You can find more information in the California Petty Theft Attorney section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer - guaranteed.
You took someone else's property without the owner's (or the owner's agent's) permission. The property was worth less than $950 and wasn't a firearm. When you took the property you intended on taking it permanently or to removing it for long enough that the owner would lose a major portion its value or enjoyment of it. Finally, you moved the property and kept it for some period of time.
Example: A pickpocket, Defendant D'Arcy, steals a cell phone from Victim Vaugh's backpack. Thinking that it's an older model worth perhaps $100 for its spare parts, she takes the phone to Pawn Broker, who informs her that it's an unreleased model iPhone worth at least $2500. D'Arcy takes $1000 for it, but, unbeknownst to her, Pawn Broker calls the police, who find D'Arcy and arrest her for Petty Theft under CPC §488. Should D'Arcy be convicted of the crime?
Conclusion: D'Arcy willfully took property that belonged to Vaughn and didn't have Vaugh's permission. She clearly intended on permanently depriving him of ownership of the phone, since she sold the phone to Pawn Broker and took money for it. This required moving the phone. The property was not a firearm or any other form of Grand Theft. However, the phone was worth well over $950; D'Arcy got more than that when she resold the property. Therefore, since D'Arcy committed a Grand Theft, she shouldn't be convicted under §488.
California's law on Receiving Stolen Property (CPC §496(a)) applies when anyone buys or receives property that's been stolen or extorted, knowing how the property was obtained. The law also applies to concealing, selling, withholding, or aiding someone in concealing, selling, or withholding property from the owner, if you know how it was obtained. Any type of Theft is enough to qualify but Extortion must involve threats or use of force and the property must've been provided with the victim's consent.
Receiving Stolen Property can be charged as either a Misdemeanor or a Felony, depending on the facts of your case, which makes CPC §496(a) a “wobbler” crime. The charge is related to Robbery because goods stolen by Robbery often end up being resold, creating the possibility of Receiving Stolen Property.
Note: Receiving property means taking possession and control of it. Nearness or access isn't enough. Also, two or more people can possess property at the same time, and a person doesn't have to hold or touch something to possess it; the person has to have control over it or the right to control it, instead.
You can find more information in the Property Crimes Defense Attorneys section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer - guaranteed.
You bought, received, sold, aided in selling, or concealed or withheld property that had been stolen from its owner or obtained by Extortion. Additionally, when you were involved with the property, you knew it had been stolen or obtained by Extortion.
Example: Defendant Danny goes to a Rams game but doesn't have a ticket. He approaches Illegal Ticket Seller and buys a ticket for a price well above face value. Illegal Ticket Seller, whose prices don't go unnoticed by law enforcement, is later arrested. He tells police that he stole the tickets from a vendor and sold one to Danny. The police find Danny inside the Coliseum and arrest him for violating CPC §496(a). Should Danny be convicted?
Conclusion: While it's clear that Danny bought stolen property (Illegal Ticket Seller admitted as much), Danny had no idea of the ticket's origins. (That Danny paid an inflated face value doesn't prove the ticket was stolen or extorted.) Danny shouldn't be convicted of Receiving Stolen Property because he had no idea the ticket was stolen.
The basic form of Extortion (CPC §518(a)), “Extortion By Threat Or Force,” occurs in California whenever a person obtains valuables or official acts from another (with his or her consent) through wrongful use of force, fear, or under a claim of an official right. The threat “may involve harm to be inﬂicted by [you] or by someone else.” Extortion is connected to Robbery because an extortionate threat can be part of a Robbery, which allows the prosecution to charge you with both crimes in the same trial.
Example: Defendant Diane finds out that her sales coworker, Victim Violeta, is having an affair with another coworker's husband. Diane threatens Violeta, telling her that unless Violeta gives Diane Violeta's client list, Diane will let everyone in the office know about Violeta's extramarital relationship. Violeta spends the next week giving Diane clients. Finally, tired of being abused, Violeta tells Diane to leave her alone or she'll call the police and report Diane for Extortion. Diane insists that she did nothing wrong because no actual money was involved. If arrested, should Diane be convicted under §518(a)?
Conclusion: Diane used a credible threat to induce Violeta to give her something valuable (a list of clients Diane could use for her own profit). Diane threatened Violeta in order to get the client list; that was her specific intent. Violeta then consented and gave Diane some clients. Therefore, although no money was exchanged, Violeta was the victim of Extortion. Diane should be convicted of the charge.
CPC §459 creates the crime of Burglary, which occurs any time someone enters a building with the intent to commit Theft or a felony inside the structure. Burglaries inside homes, vessels, floating homes or trailers are First Degree burglaries. All other forms of Burglary are in the Second Degree. This means that burglarizing a structure like a business is a “wobbler” offense.
A term of up to six (6) years in a state prison.
A term of up to one (1) year in county jail.
Note: You must form the intent commit Burglary at or before the time of entering the structure.
More information can be found in the Burglary Lawyer Section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. An attorney will take your call. That's guaranteed.
You entered a building, a locked vehicle, or a structure intending to commit Theft or a felony involving property worth more than $950, or you entered a noncommercial establishment, or you entered a commercial establishment outside business hours with the same intent.
Example: Defendant Deke enters Restaurant during the lunch rush hour. He stands in line long enough to notice that a cash register has been left open and unattended. Deke slips away, ducks behind the counter, and pockets all the cash. He doesn't notice that Employee has seen him. Employee calls the police, who arrest Deke before he escapes. Deke has more than a $1000 in his pocket at the time, all of which is Restaurant's money. He's charged with Burglary under CPC §459. Should Deke be convicted?
Conclusion: Deke entered a commercial establishment and stole property worth more than $950 ($1000 in cash). However, to be guilty of Burglary the suspect had to have decided to commit a Felony before entering the establishment in question, and he or she has to burglarize a commercial establishment after hours. Deke did neither of these things. Deke, it follows, should be acquitted of the Burglary charge for two different reasons.
The CPC's primary section on the crime of Kidnapping is §207(a). Kidnapping under §207(a) is defined as “forcibly, or by any other means of instilling fear, steal[ing] or tak[ing], or hold[ing], detain[ing], or arrest[ing] any person […] [ ] and carr[ying] the person into another country, state, or county, or into another part of the same county.” Kidnapping is related to Robbery because Kidnapping can occur during a Robbery, which would allow the prosecution to charge you with both crimes in the same trial.
A minimum of twelve (12) months in county jail, if Probation is granted.
Note: Biological parents, adoptive parents, natural fathers and those who, by court order, have access to minors under fourteen are exempt from the section of the law creating penalties for abducting minors.
More information can be found in the Kidnapping Defense Lawyer section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer – guaranteed.
You took, held, or detained another person using force or fear and moved that person or made the person move a substantial distance. The person didn't consent to being moved. Finally, you shouldn't have believed that the person consented.
Example: Defendant Derrick, a onetime celebrity who's fallen into disgrace, is staying at a hotel. There's a movie memorabilia convention in the lobby. Derrick finds out that Victim Vlad, a vendor who owns a lot of items related to Derrick, is selling wares at the convention. Derrick believes Vlad owes him money for the goods he's selling. He follows Vlad to his room, knocks on the door, grabs Vlad by the shirt when Vlad answers, drags Vlad into an elevator and takes the elevator up three floors, ignoring Vlad's pleas all the while. Derrick then throws Vlad into Derrick's room, telling Vlad that he's “not leaving until” he gives Derrick “the profits” from “all” his Derrick-related memorabilia sales. Vlad manages to escape and calls police, who arrest Derrick for Kidnapping under §207(a). Should he be convicted?
Conclusion: Derrick forcibly moved Vlad to Derrick's own room and tried to hold Vlad there. This may not seem a great distance but the CPC includes no distance requirement regarding moving a kidnapped person - only calling for moving the person a “substantial distance,” to be judged from the surrounding circumstances. Forcing Vlad from one private room to another, across three floors, could easily qualify as “moving” Vlad for purposes of the law. Vlad also protested against being moved, proving that Derrick shouldn't have believed Vlad consented to being moved. Derrick, therefore, should be convicted.
CPC §215(a) defines “Carjacking” as taking “a motor vehicle in the possession of another, from his or her person or immediate presence, or from the person or immediate presence of a passenger of the motor vehicle” which is done “against his or her will and with the intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person in possession of the motor vehicle” and taken by “force or fear.” Carjacking is related to Robbery because robberies can easily result in stolen cars.
A term of up to nine (9) years in state prison.
Note: If you've committed a single act that would violate both §211 and §215(a), you can't be convicted under both. In that situation, the prosecution must choose to file charges under one law or the other.
More information is available in the Violent Crime Defense Lawyers section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer – and that's always guaranteed.
You used force or fear and took a motor vehicle that wasn't yours. You also took the vehicle in the immediate presence of its possessor (or a passenger) and you did it against that person's will. Finally, you intended on taking the vehicle, at least temporarily.
Example: Victim Valerie pulls into a fast food restaurant parking lot late one night. Standing in the space beside her, and holding a sign that reads “Homeless - Please Help,” is Defendant Dennis. He takes a few steps toward her and is about to ask for change when Valerie, seeing Dennis for the first time, screams and runs away, leaving her SUV door open and the key in the ignition. Dennis waits until Valerie is out of sight before hopping into the driver's seat and speeding from the parking lot. Later, after Valerie reports the SUV stolen, police arrest Dennis and charge him under CPC §215(a). Should Dennis be convicted?
Conclusion: We can assume that Dennis took the SUV against Valerie's will. We can also assume that Dennis intended on at least temporarily taking the SUV. However, Dennis did nothing even remotely menacing to coerce Valerie into surrendering her vehicle; he simply wanted to ask for change and Valerie responded as though Dennis were going to hurt her. Furthermore, Dennis only took the vehicle after he knew that Valerie had run away, not from her immediate presence. Therefore, as there are multiple elements of the crime that can't be established, Dennis should be acquitted of Carjacking.
California's Grand Theft Auto (CPC §487(d)(1)) law applies whenever a vehicle is taken from its rightful owner. Grand Theft Auto does not require the use of fear or force but you must move the property and keep it for some period of time.
Since California punishes Theft in two degrees (Grand and Petty), the facts surrounding your case will determine the severity of the charge. Depending on the particulars, the prosecutor can choose to charge you with a Misdemeanor or a Felony. This makes Grand Theft Auto a “wobbler” crime. Grand Theft Auto is related to Robbery because vehicles are often taken in robberies.
Note: You can also commit Grand Theft Auto by stealing from a car owner's authorized agent.
You can find more information in the California Grand Theft Lawyer section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer. Guaranteed.
You took someone else's automobile without the owner's (or the owner's agent's) permission. You took it intending on taking it permanently or removing it for long enough that the owner would lose a major portion of its value or enjoyment of it. Finally, you moved the vehicle and kept it for some time period.
Example: A car thief, Defendant Dalia, pries open a car door and sets to work “hot wiring” a vehicle just as its owner, Victim Val, encounters Dalia trying to start the ignition. She calls for police, who arrive and find Dalia trying unsuccessfully to start the engine. They arrest her and charge her with violating CPC §487(d)(1). Should Dee be convicted?
Conclusion: Dee entered a vehicle owned by Val without Val's permission. Being a car thief, we can assume that Dee intended on permanently denying Val of ownership of the car. Dee had possession of the vehicle long enough to enter and attempt to “hot wire” it. However, Dee never moved the vehicle; she was trying to start the engine when police arrested her. Dee shouldn't be convicted of the charge.
Unauthorized Use Of A Vehicle is a crime under California Vehicle Code [CVC] §10851(a). The section applies when anyone takes a vehicle that doesn't belong to him or her without the owner's permission. The vehicle must be taken with the intent of permanently denying the owner possession or ownership. The taking can be for any period of time and the intent doesn't have to include stealing the vehicle.
Note: That you, or someone you're driving with, had permission to take or drive a vehicle on a previous occasion won't excuse a later unauthorized taking. Additionally, you can be charged with Unauthorized Use Of A Vehicle just by being a party to taking or stealing a vehicle.
More information is available on the Kann California Defense Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer. We always guarantee it.
You took or drove someone else's vehicle without the owner's consent. When you did so, you intended on depriving the owner of possession or ownership of the vehicle for some period of time.
Example: Defendant Dee wants to go to the beach with Boyfriend and asks her Mother for permission to take her car. Mother grants it. The next day, again wanting to go to the beach with Boyfriend, Dee takes her Mother's car but this time doesn't ask for Mother's permission. Mother discovers the car missing and reports it stolen. The police later pull Dee over and arrest her under CVC §10851(a). Dee insists she had permission to take the car because Mother gave it to her the day before. Should Dee be convicted?
Conclusion: Dee drove Mother's vehicle without Mother's permission. She did so intending on depriving Mother of possession of the vehicle long enough to go to, and return from, the beach. That Mother gave Dee permission to take the vehicle the day before doesn't establish that Dee had permission to take the car at any other time. Dee should, therefore, be convicted of the charge.
California's statute on Joyriding (CPC §499(a)) applies whenever anyone previously convicted of violating CVC §10851(a) [see above] or CPC §487(d)(1) [Grand Theft Auto], having served a term in punishment, is later convicted of a violation of CPC §499(b) involving a vehicle or vessel. Section 499(b) says that if you've been charged at least twice under the Section and convicted of taking a vehicle or vessel, having served time, you can be sentenced to state or county prison. This makes §499(a) a “wobbler” offense; you can be charged with either a Misdemeanor or a Felony, depending on the unique facts of your case.
Note: CPC §499(a) only applies to the theft of bicycles, motorboats, or other vessels.
You were previously convicted of violating CVC §10851(a) or CPC §487(d)(1) and served a jail or prison term. You were later convicted of a violation of §499(b), involving a vehicle or vessel, having already been charged at least twice under that Section and having been convicted of taking a vehicle or vessel.
Example: Defendant Donnie is arrested for stealing an airplane from a private hangar. He was arrested and convicted of stealing a car one year before stealing the plane. Police want to charge him under CPC §499(a). Should Donnie be convicted of the accusation?
Conclusion: Donnie committed Grand Theft Auto and served time for the crime. However, without considering the intricacies of the statute, §499(a) doesn't apply to the theft of airplanes; they aren't bicycles, motorboats, or a vessel. Donnie, therefore, should be acquitted of the charge.
What Can I Do If I'm Charged With Robbery?
The State of California treats Robbery as a serious offense. If you're charged with Robbery, it's essential that you retain a skilled, dedicated criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. Your rights, freedom, and livelihood are at stake.
The attorneys at the Kann California Defense Group have an excellent understanding of the local courts and an extensive knowledge of California's criminal justice system. We can represent you in Ventura, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles, Encino, Pasadena and many other Southern California cities. If you or someone you know has been arrested for, or charged with, Robbery, our attorneys will analyze the facts of your case and plan a strategy that will help you obtain the best possible outcome.
 “A person takes something when he or she gains possession of it and moves it some distance. The distance moved may be short.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 1600 (CALCRIM) (2017).
 “The property taken can be of any value, however slight.” See above.
 “Two or more people may possess something at the same time. [¶] A person does not have to actually hold or touch something to possess it. It is enough if the person has control over it or the right to control it, either personally or through another person. [¶] A store or business employee who is on duty has possession of the store or business owner's property.” See above.
 “Property is within a person's immediate presence if it is sufficiently within his or her physical control that he or she could keep possession of it if not prevented by force or fear.” See above.
 “An act is done against a person's will if that person does not consent to the act. In order to consent, a person must act freely and voluntarily and know the nature of the act.” See above.
 “Fear, as used here, means fear of injury to the person himself or herself or injury to the person's family or property or immediate injury to someone else present during the incident or to that person's property.” See above.
 The statute also applies to thefts of livestock (in excess of $250), theft of money by employees exceeding $950 over twelve months, and thefts targeting aquamarine research facilities. See CPC §§487(b)(1)(A),(B)(2),(3).
 See California Criminal Jury Instructions 1801 (CALCRIM) (2017).
 See California Criminal Jury Instructions 1800 (CALCRIM) (2017).
 See Endnote 16 for additional conditions.
 Deandra could still be charged with Trespass (CPC §602(k)).
 D'Arcy would likely be charged under CPC §487(a) (Grand Theft).
 See California Criminal Jury Instructions 1750 (CALCRIM) (2017).
 See California Criminal Jury Instructions 1700 (CALCRIM) (2017).
 Deke would still be in danger of facing a Grand Theft (CPC §487(a)) charge.
 CPC §207 ((b),(c)) also creates the crime of kidnapping by taking a person under the age of 14 to another county, state, or country, and the crime of kidnapping to make the victim a slave or involuntary servant.
 See California Criminal Jury Instructions 1215 (CALCRIM) (2017).
 Facts based on OJ Simpson's Las Vegas arrest. See “OJ Simpson accomplices reveal how 2007 Vegas hotel room meeting escalated into botched robbery” by Jasmine Brown, Joseph Diaz, Jim Dubreuil and Lauren Effron. ABC News Online, July 14, 2017.
 Derrick could also be charged under CPC §209(a), which make it a crime to kidnap for ransom or reward.
 Dennis can still be charged with Grand Theft Auto (CPC §487(d)(1)).
 Dee could still be charged with Attempted Grand Theft (CPC §664(a)).
 See California Criminal Jury Instructions 1820 (CALCRIM) (2017).
 Donnie could still be charged with Grand Theft (CPC §487(a)).

References: §211
 §211
 §211
 §211
 §211
 §211
 §211
 §211
 §211
 §487
 §488
 §496
 §518
 §459
 §207
 §215
 §487
 §10851
 §499
 §487
 §488
 §488
 §488
 §496
 §496
 §496
 §518
 §518
 §459
 §459
 §207
 §207
 §207
 §215
 §211
 §215
 §215
 §487
 §487
 §10851
 §10851
 §499
 §10851
 §487
 §499
 §499
 §499
 §10851
 §487
 §499
 §499
 §499
 §602
 §487
 §487
 §207
 §209
 §487
 §664
 §487