People v. Elam CA4/1

── People v. Elam CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/28/26 P. v. Elam CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D085733 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD304081) v. DESHAWN RAMON ELAM, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Rachel Cano, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part with directions. Deanna Lynn Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Vincent LaPietra and Daniel Rogers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.  A jury convicted Deshawn Ramon Elam of robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211) and petty theft (§ 484) for stealing cosmetics and clothing from a discount retail store and scuffling with a loss prevention officer who tried to stop him as he exited the store. On appeal, Elam contends his conviction for petty theft should be reversed because theft is a lesser necessarily included offense of robbery and the conviction for both arose from the same course of conduct. He also asks the court to vacate the portion of the assessments imposed for the petty theft conviction. The People agree Elam cannot be convicted of both robbery and petty theft based on the same course of conduct. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction for petty theft and direct the superior court on remand to vacate any portion of the fines and fees imposed for petty theft and to amend the abstract of judgment accordingly. BACKGROUND In June 2024, a loss prevention officer at a discount retail store observed Elam and a woman enter the store together. Each carried a small bag which they placed in a shopping cart. He saw the woman place about 10 cosmetic items in the cart. After the woman and Elam parted ways, the officer followed Elam through the store. He saw Elam quickly select four dress shirts and place them in the cart. In the luggage department, Elam grabbed a black bag. The officer saw him place the cosmetics and dress shirts in the bag. After seeing Elam conceal the items in the bag, the officer went to the front of the store where he watched Elam and the woman walk past the registers without paying. The officer confronted Elam as Elam stepped 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 outside the doors. The officer showed Elam his store badge and asked Elam to return to the store to discuss the merchandise. Elam tried to walk away, but the officer grabbed Elam’s arm and pushed him against a pillar to try to handcuff him. Elam struggled with the officer and scratched the officer’s neck. When Elam dropped the bag, the officer released Elam because the officer was concerned about his safety. Elam swung at the officer, grabbed the bag, and walked away yelling threats. The officer called 911. The People charged Elam with grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a); count 1) and robbery (§ 211; count 2). A jury found Elam not guilty of grand theft, but convicted him of petty theft (§ 484), a lesser included offense of grand theft. The jury also convicted him of robbery. In a bifurcated proceeding, Elam admitted a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12) and a serious felony prior (§