Opinion
Here we hold that taking a bicycle by threat of force for ransom constitutes a robbery.
Albert A. appeals from the order continuing him a ward of thе court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) by reason of his having committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). He was continued on probation and contends that thе prosecution failed to establish the requisite intent to sustain the second degree robbery allegation. We affirm the order.
Facts
On February 25, 1995, appеllant and 13-year-old Ali L. were both riding bicycles in Oxnard when appellant blocked Ali L.’s way. Appellant told Ali L. that he had heard one of Ali L.’s relatives had stolen one of appellant’s bicycles and that appellant intended to keep Ali L.’s bicycle until appellant’s stolen bicycle was rеturned. Appellant threatened to hit Ali L. and knock him down if he did not surrender his bicycle. Appellant took Ali L.’s bicycle.
On March 16, 1995, a police officеr had appellant’s girlfriend page appellant. Later, appellant took Ali’s bicycle, which now had badly scratched paint, to the рolice station. He told a police officer why he had taken the bicycle and said he was keeping it “basically for ransom.”
In defense, Aaron L. testified that he had told appellant he had seen Ali L. riding appellant’s missing bicycle and that he had heard one of Ali’s relatives had stolen thе bicycle. Appellant denied threatening to hit Ali and said he did not intend to keep Ali’s bicycle. In explaining his intent, appellant stated: “I just took it as, yоu know, just like I guess you could say ransom like the officer said until I got my bike back.” Appellant did not report the theft of his bicycle to the police because he bought it at a yard sale and did not have papers for it. He thought the police would “ask [him] for the number and all that." Appellant admittеd he did not know who actually took his bicycle and that he kept Ali’s bicycle in appellant’s girlfriend’s garage. Appellant had not yet recovered his stolen bicycle.
The juvenile court commented prior to hearing the arguments of counsel, “Number one, I believe that this young man believed his bikе had been *1007 stolen by someone other than the victim in this case. I think that’s true. [50 Number two, I believe that at some point he thinks or thought that the victim in this case had custody of the bike. [*fl] Number three, I believe that he took the victim’s bike with the specific intent to hold it until he got his bike back. I think that’s all true. [‘JO The issue is, accepting those facts, . . . , is that robbery on the one hand, or is that a taking under claim of right which excuses the behavior and we leave him convicted of simрle assault under 240.”
Appellant’s trial counsel pointed out that “the question was what was on Albert’s mind when he took the bicycle. ... I think it’s been proven that hе did not intend to deprive Ali of his bicycle. . . .” The prosecution argued that appellant’s intent to keep the property indefinitely as ransom wаs an intent to deprive permanently.
The court responded, "... I think [the prosecutor’s] evaluation of the facts [is] correct. I think he intended to kеep [the bicycle] for as long as it would take to get his bike back. [^] On the state of the evidence that it was held for ransom, I think it’s an issue of law if that cоnstitutes a robbery . ... ['JO This is a very awkward case for me. I believe the young man.”
The court described appellant’s conduct as a “foolish indiscretion on the part of this young man . . . .” The court said it was “duty-bound under the law to find that robbery occurred . . . .” The court further stated: “. . . I think it’s a technical robbery, becаuse he does not have the right to do what he did. . . . Did he intend to permanently deprive, and the answer is yes, he did. He had a claim, but that’s not a justifiable claim in the law as I perceive it.” In discussing the appropriate disposition, the juvenile court added, “We’ve adjudicated it was a robbery. I don’t know how you put a footnote on the rap sheet that says ‘But the judge thought it was at best technical and impose no sanction,’ . . . .”
Discussion
Appellant contends that the juvenile court’s comments indicate that the court did not believe appellant intended to permanently deprive Ali L. of his bicycle аnd that, therefore, it was error to find he committed a robbery. Robbery is essentially larceny aggravated by use of force or fear to facilitate the taking of property from the person or presence of the possessor.
(People
v.
Butler
(1967)
Appellant asserts that his intent was to take the bicycle only temporarily. “ ‘[A] bona fide belief of a right or claim to the property taken, even if mistaken, negates the element of felonious intent.’ ”
(People
v.
Romo
(1990)
While the juvenile court indicated it believed appellant’s explanation of the reason he took the bicycle, the court specifically found that appellant intended to permanently deprive Ali L. of his bicycle when appellant took it. Substantial evidence supports this finding. Appellant did not return the bicycle until he was contacted by the poliсe. Appellant never said he thought Ali’s bicycle was his or that he had a right to it. He did not, in fact, have a claim of right to Ali’s bicycle, but only to his own. (Cf.
People
v.
Butler, supra,
65 Cal.2d at pp. 573-574 [bona fide belief, even though mistakenly held, that one has a claim to property taken negates felonious intent];
People
v.
Rosen
(1938)
Even the return of property previously taken does not compel the conclusion that a defendant intended only to temporarily deprive the owner of the property.
(People
v.
DeLeon, supra,
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that appellant intended to permanently deprive Ali of his bicycle.
(People
v.
Ochoa
(1993)
The order continuing wardship is affirmed.
Gilbert, J., and Yegan, J., concurred.