Lucero v. People
| Decision Date | 14 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 22159,22159 |
| Citation | 423 P.2d 577,161 Colo. 568 |
| Parties | Frank Bernard LUCERO, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Robert W. Caddes, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Aurel M. Kelly, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Lucero was convicted by a jury of the crimes of so-called aggravated robbery and conspiracy, and in connection therewith he was thereafter sentenced to concurrent terms in the state penitentiary. By writ of error Lucero now seeks a reversal of these judgments and sentences.
Lucero first contends that the judgments and sentences must be reversed, and the information thereafter dismissed, because he was not tried within the 'two terms of court' rule provided for in C.R.S.1963, 39--7--12. In this regard the record discloses that Lucero was informed against by the district attorney on August 26, 1964 and that the subsequent trial of his case occurred on April 20 and 21, 1965. Hence, it is apparent that though Lucero was not tried within the 'two terms of court' rule, he was nonetheless tried within the 'one year rule,' as provided for by Colo. R. Crim. P. 48(b).
In Casias v. People, Colo., 415 P.2d 344, we held that the 'controlling test' is Rule 48(b), and not the aforementioned statute, namely C.R.S.1963, 39--7--12. Nor does the record disclose that Lucero was in anywise denied the 'speedy' public trial guaranteed him by the Constitution of Colorado, article II, section 16. At least certain of the delays in getting to trial were of Lucero's own making. Suffice it to say, we find no error in this regard.
As ground for reversal Lucero next urges that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the guilty verdict on the charge of aggravated robbery, and that the court erred in its refusal to take this particular charge from the jury. In our view the record does disclose ample evidence to justify, and indeed to require, the submission of this issue to the jury. McGraw v. People, 154 Colo. 368, 390 P.2d 819. Hence, an instruction defining socalled aggravated robbery was under the circumstances not only proper, but essential.
Finally, Lucero argues that it was error for the trial court to refuse to instruct the jury on simple robbery, as opposed to aggravated robbery, and to submit appropriate forms of verdict in connection with socalled simple robbery. It is quite true that in Funk v. People, 90 Colo. 167, 7 P.2d 823, we held that under the facts and circumstances of that case it was error for a trial court to refuse to instruct on simple robbery, and to submit appropriate forms of verdict in connection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. People
...less evidence of specific intent than exists in this case. See Moyer v. People, 165 Colo. 583, 440 P.2d 783 (1968); Lucero v. People, 161 Colo. 568, 423 P.2d 577 (1967). The defendant's final contention is that the offenses of assault with a deadly weapon and kidnapping should have been mer......
-
People v. Aragon
...560 (1980); People v. Lundy, 188 Colo. 194, 533 P.2d 920 (1975); People v. Reed, 180 Colo. 16, 502 P.2d 952 (1972); Lucero v. People, 161 Colo. 568, 423 P.2d 577 (1967). 7 The trial court, therefore, properly rejected the defendant's tendered instruction on simple The judgment is affirmed. ......
-
People v. Saars
...testimony on intent did not give rise to a requirement of an instruction on criminal trespass. People v. Lundy, supra; Lucero v. People, 161 Colo. 568, 423 P.2d 577 (1967); Vigil v. People, 158 Colo. 268, 406 P.2d 100 (1965). The trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury on crimina......
-
Candelaria v. People
...I was, not to shout or cry out, or somebody would get shot.' This testimony places the instant case squarely within Lucero v. People, 161 Colo. 568, 423 P.2d 577 (1967) which holds that a threat by the defendant to shoot the victim is sufficient to require shbmission of an aggravated robber......
-
Section 16 CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS - RIGHTS OF DEFENDANT.
...guaranteed him by the constitution where at least certain of the delays in getting to trial were of his own making. Lucero v. People, 161 Colo. 568, 423 P.2d 577 (1967); People v. Bost, 770 P.2d 1209 (Colo. 1989). Where the record disclosed four continuances at the request, or with the cons......