People v. Cabada

Summary

The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed Jose Manuel Cabada’s convictions and aggregate 12-year, eight-month sentence for robbery and related offenses. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish robbery by fear and that any Senate Bill 567 sentencing error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under People v. Lynch and Erlinger v. United States. An April 3, 2025 order modified the March 24, 2025 opinion by deleting one paragraph, without changing the judgment.

Holdings

1. Substantial evidence supported the robbery conviction because the clerk subjectively feared Cabada, and that fear enabled Cabada to obtain the money and other property. California robbery law does not require the victim's fear to be objectively reasonable.
2. Remand was not required because, beyond a reasonable doubt, a jury would have found true the aggravating facts relied on by the trial court, and the record clearly indicated that the trial court would have imposed the upper term even under the amended sentencing law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether substantial evidence supported Cabada's second degree robbery conviction, particularly the finding that the clerk acted under fear.
2. Whether Senate Bill 567, as interpreted by People v. Lynch and Erlinger v. United States, required remand for a jury determination of the aggravating circumstances supporting the upper-term sentence.
3. Whether the record clearly indicated that the trial court would have imposed the upper term under the amended sentencing scheme.

Disposition

affirmed