By Jonathan Nunez
STANISLAUS, CA – In Stanislaus County Superior Court late last week, the accused was brought to court for allegedly violating probation by committing robbery, but after the defense noted accepting a plea wasn’t the best for the client, Judge Dawna Reeves insisted her plea would actually be in the accused’s “best interests.”
Judge Reeves further explained that taking this plea and serving eight months in prison is a good disposition to agree to before the existence of any new information.
The judge added, “A small win today doesn’t get him out of the woods if he doesn’t remain crime free for the next two or three years,” as the judge’s insistence for the accused to accept the deal only grew stronger.
According to the court, on Jan. 19, the accused was arrested for allegedly taking someone else’s property, a backpack, and using force to harm them. While the officer was able to positively identify the accused in court, the arresting officer also admitted the backpack was taken from a public area in close proximity to the store owner’s establishment.
The defense argued that what his client did may be similar to a robbery, but it does not meet all the conditions, arguing, “This wouldn’t be considered an Estes Robbery. One of the things that an Estes Robbery needs is immediate presence. Here, we don’t have four walls of an area. One of the elements of a robbery is robbing within the immediate presence or taking away from a person. In my client’s case, the line is blurred. He simply took a backpack in a seemingly public area.”
California Penal Code (CPC) §211 defines robbery as using threat or force to take someone else’s property against their will, while an Estes Robbery is a situation where a shoplifting crime can escalate into a robbery case. Although both of these crimes are similar in nature, the defense was able to highlight the core difference to advocate for his client.
The defense continued to argue that although the accused was confronted and used force to retake the backpack, a robbery was not committed because it was not complete.
“It would only be complete if he were to cross the street,” according to the accused’s defense attorney, who added, the loose conditions surrounding his client’s actions barely even make a case.
The case will be continued.
