People v. Cheso CA3

── People v. Cheso CA3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/27/26 P. v. Cheso CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yuba) THE PEOPLE, C102150 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF20-00460) v. JOHN JEREMY CHESO, Defendant and Appellant. A jury found defendant John Jeremy Cheso guilty of attempted robbery. On appeal, defendant contends insufficient evidence supports the jury finding that he intended to take at the time he used force, as he argues is required for an attempted robbery conviction. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In February 2020, the victim left a casino around midnight. Outside the casino, the victim called for a ride home and sat on a bench. Defendant sat next to the victim, who recognized defendant. Defendant demanded money from the victim and stated something to the effect of, “ ‘I know you got money and you are going to give me money or I’m going to take it from you.’ ” The victim stated he did not have money and stood to empty his pockets in response to defendant’s increasing aggression—demonstrated by defendant’s loud volume, “foul words,” and “rocking” back and forth. Defendant then said, “ ‘I’ll take the phone,’ ” and reached for the phone in the victim’s hand. The victim 1 “yanked away” and ran from defendant toward the casino’s doors. Defendant chased the victim and hit him “with his fist on the top of [the victim’s] head,” inflicting a deep gash. The victim entered the casino and defendant ran away. At trial, the prosecutor introduced video surveillance footage from the casino into evidence as an exhibit.1 The prosecutor showed the video with accompanying testimony from a detective, who agreed the video “roughly depict[ed]” the victim’s account of the incident. The jury found defendant guilty of attempted robbery. The trial court sentenced defendant to 18 months in prison. Defendant appeals. DISCUSSION Defendant contends insufficient evidence supports his conviction for attempted robbery because he did not have the intent to take at the time he used force. We disagree. In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, our role is limited. (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 738.) “We ‘ “ ‘must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 57.) “ ‘Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence.’ ” (Ibid.) “Because direct evidence of a defendant’s intent rarely exists, intent may be inferred from the circumstances of the crime and the defendant’s acts.” (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411, 457.) 1 The video is not in the appellate record. 2  An attempt to commit a crime occurs when there is “a specific intent to commit the crime, and a direct but ineffectual act done toward its commission.” (Pen. Code, § 21a.) “ ‘The act required must be more than mere preparation, it m