## Facts

- A Sav-On drug store bookkeeper, Marsha Pederson, was working in a second-floor office containing two time-locked safes.
- An intruder crashed through the office’s acoustical ceiling wearing a mask-like covering, a dark knit cap, and a green sweatshirt-like garment; a rifle was slung across his chest.
- Pederson screamed and ran out of the office; she testified she felt threatened and afraid despite the rifle not being pointed at her.
- After Pederson fled, money was removed from the safes.
- Charles Lee Hays, Sr. was apprehended nearby; evidence connected him to the incident, including clothing and a sawed-off rifle found wrapped in a sweatshirt.

## Issues

1. Whether the taking from the safes satisfied robbery’s “immediate presence” and “force or fear” elements when the victim fled before the money was removed.
2. Whether an assault with a deadly weapon was proven when the rifle was displayed but not aimed at the victim.
3. Whether the firearm-use enhancement applied where the rifle was carried in a manner visible and intimidating but was not pointed, cocked, fired, or accompanied by express threats.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing an upper term and consecutive sentences, including enhancements for prior felonies.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions for robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, and possession of a sawed-off rifle.
- The court held substantial evidence supported robbery because the victim’s forced flight did not remove the property from her “immediate presence,” and the taking was accomplished by “force or fear.”
- The court upheld the assault conviction, finding the close-range display of a rifle during a violent entry supported an inference of imminent threatened harm.
- The court sustained the firearm-use enhancements, concluding the rifle was displayed in a menacing manner under the circumstances and thus was “used,” not merely possessed.
- The court affirmed the sentence, finding no abuse of discretion in selecting the upper term, imposing consecutive terms, and adding prior-prison-term enhancements.

## Legal Principles

- Property is taken from a victim’s “immediate presence” for robbery if it is within the victim’s reach, observation, or control such that the victim could have retained possession but for intimidation or violence.
- Robbery’s “force or fear” element may be satisfied by conduct that reasonably induces fear and compels the victim to retreat, even without a firearm being aimed or fired.
- Assault with a deadly weapon may be found where a defendant’s conduct and weapon display in close proximity support a reasonable apprehension of imminent injury.
- “Use” of a firearm for an enhancement requires more than passive possession; it may be shown by displaying the firearm in a threatening or menacing manner under circumstances that convey an implied threat.

## Conclusion

An armed intruder who violently enters a bookkeeper’s office with a rifle visibly slung across his chest and causes the bookkeeper to flee before money is taken commits robbery because the property remains within the victim’s immediate presence and the taking is accomplished by fear; the same threatening display supports assault with a deadly weapon and firearm-use enhancements, and the resulting sentence was properly imposed.


People v. Hays, 147 Cal. App. 3d 534, 195 Cal. Rptr. 252 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)