Because the omission did not result in prejudice, appellants’ related claim of ineffective assistance based on defense counsel’s failure to remind the trial court to give a limiting instruction fails. (People v. Mendoza, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 170.)
[[Begin nonpublished portion]]
[[2. The trial court properly instructed on grand theft from the person.
Fuentes asserts the trial court had a sua sponte obligation to instruct on grand theft from the person as a lesser offense necessarily included within robbery based on Stepanyan’s testimony that Fuentes reached into the car and removed Rodriguez’s chain from her neck.
The People respond the trial court did instruct on grand theft.
In the reply brief, Fuentes argues the instruction given by the trial court was inadequate because it failed to explain how the jury should determine whether the offense was grand or petty theft.
This claim fails because theft from the person, by definition, is grand theft. (§ 487, subd. (c).) The trial court properly so instructed the jury. Accordingly, grand theft from the person was the only relevant lesser offense in this case. To the extent the trial court incorrectly also allowed the case to go to the jury on a theory of petty theft, the error accrued to Fuentes’s benefit and cannot be seen as requiring reversal of the judgment.
3. The evidence supported the trial court’s instruction on flight.
a. Background information.
After receiving a radio broadcast regarding the robbery, Hawthorne Police Officer Stephan Colquette tried to speak with Hernandez, who matched the description Colquette had received. Hernandez ran up a flight of apartment stairs and along the second floor walkway of an apartment building, jumped from the second floor to the roof of another building, then jumped to the ground. Colquette found Hernandez about 20 minutes later sitting on the porch of an apartment. Hernandez was wearing a black T-shirt and previously had been wearing a gray one.