Villa

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1431 OPINION Antonio Espinoza Villa (appellant) was convicted of one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211 ), for which the alleged victim was a store employee. 1 He also was convicted of one count of petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction (§ 666), for which the alleged victim was the store itself. We will refer to that crime as petty theft with a prior. He contends: (1) There was insufficient evidence that he committed robbery. (2) His conviction for petty theft with a prior must be stricken, as he cannot be convicted both of robbery and of petty theft with a prior, arising from the same incident. (3) The amount of the court security fee must be reduced. We find that there was sufficient evidence that appellant committed robbery (count 1). We hold that a defendant cannot be convicted both of robbery and petty theft with a prior, arising from the same incident, because the prior conviction is a sentencing factor, rather than an element, so petty theft with a prior is a lesser included offense of robbery. We therefore…