People v. Mullins
19 Cal. App. 5th 594
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Defendants Karre Mullins and Arturo Russell (both young, larger men) were tried for multiple ATM robberies; Mullins additionally convicted of conspiracy to commit petty theft; both received multi-year determinate terms.
- Victims had inserted ATM cards and entered PINs, received cards back, and were interrupted before completing the "finished" step; defendants then accessed the machines and withdrew funds from victims' accounts.
- Victims were older and smaller; in several incidents Russell physically pushed or crowded victims away, and Mullins acted as a lookout/partner.
- Police previously encountered Mullins and Russell near ATMs; they were found with cash but no Bank of America cards.
- Trial judge modified CALCRIM No. 1600 to add language on force (consider relative physical characteristics) and immediate presence (victim leaving out of fear).
- On appeal defendants challenged sufficiency of evidence for robbery, claimed identity-theft statute precluded robbery convictions, challenged the modified jury instruction, Mullins contested felony treatment of conspiracy, and Russell sought correction of sentencing records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for robbery (possession/immediate presence/force) | Prosecution: victims had constructive possession and money was in their immediate presence; force or fear was used. | Defendants: money belonged to bank (not victims), not in immediate presence, and no sufficient force/fear; Mullins also denied aiding-and-abetting and conspiracy evidence. | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported constructive possession, immediate presence, and force/fear; aiding/abetting and conspiracy evidence sufficient. |
| Whether identity-theft statute precludes robbery (Williamson rule) | Prosecution: robbery requires force/fear and goes beyond identity theft. | Defendants: §530.5 (identity theft) is the more specific statute and should be exclusive. | Rejected: Williamson inapplicable because identity-theft lacks force/fear element; robbery not displaced. |
| Modified jury instruction on force and immediate presence (argumentative) | Prosecution: additions correctly stated law. | Defendants: language was argumentative and prejudicial. | Rejected: statements were correct statements of law (not improper argument); any error harmless. |
| Sentencing technical errors and Mullins felony/misdemeanor treatment | Prosecution: sentencing and judge's exercise of discretion were proper; minute and abstract should match oral sentence. | Mullins: conspiracy (wobbler) should have been reduced to misdemeanor; Russell: minute/abstract inconsistent with oral sentence. | Mixed: court affirmed sentencing choices (no abuse for treating conspiracy as felony) but ordered correction of Russell's minute order and abstract to match oral pronouncement. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Steele, 27 Cal.4th 1230 (review standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v. Scott, 45 Cal.4th 743 (constructive possession can satisfy robbery possession element)
- People v. Abilez, 41 Cal.4th 472 (definition of immediate presence: property within zone victim could control but for interference)
- People v. Hayes, 52 Cal.3d 577 (immediate presence includes area where victim could exercise physical control)
- People v. Murphy, 52 Cal.4th 81 (application of Williamson rule regarding special v. general statutes)