People v. Aguilar
| Decision Date | 21 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6604 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Frank Soliz AGUILAR, Theodore Cardona, Edward Nilla Juarez, and Alexander Richard Saldivar, Defendants, Alexander Richard Saldiver, Appellant. |
David Hoffman, Los Angelse, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Marvin L. Part, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
In two counts of an information, defendant Saldivar and three other persons (Aguilar, Cardona, and Juarez) were accused of robbery. Defendant Saldivar denied an allegation of the information that he had been previously convicted of burglary. In a nonjury trial the defendants were convicted on both counts (robbery in the second degree). The allegation as to prior conviction was found to be untrue. Saldivar appeals from the judgment and from an 'order denying his motion for acquittal.' The order, so referred to, is not appealable.
Appellant asserts that the evidence was not sufficient to support an inference that he aided or abetted in the commission of a robbery.
On August 1, 1958, about 10 p. m., Ted Stevens, age 15, and Pat Burke, age 16, were on a highway (freeway) in Long Beach and were intending to hitchhike to their homes. They gave a 'hitchhiker's signal,' and an automobile stopped. The driver and owner of the automobile was defendant Aguilar. Defendant Juarez was in the front seat with the driver. Defendant Cardona and Saldivar, and one Lopez (a juvenile, who was not prosecuted herein), were in the rear seat. Saldivar was on the left end of the rear seat; Cardona was in the middle of the seat; and Lopez was on the right end of the seat. When the automobile stopped, Juarez (who was in the front seat with the driver) got out of the automobile, and Pat Burke got into the front seat and sat between the driver and Juarez (who had re-entered the automobile). Also when the automobile stopped, Lopez (who was on the right end of the rear seat) got out of the automobile, and Ted Stevens got into the rear seat and sat between Cardona and Lopez (who had re-entered the autmobile). Pat and Ted (the boys who were hitchhiking) told the defendants that their destination was the '101 Bridge.' When the automobile arrived at the bridge, the boys said that was the place where they were going. The driver did not stop the automobile there, but he 'kept laughing,' and the other defendants laughed and spoke Spanish. At a place about a mile and a half past the bridge, the automobile left the freeway and went upon streets which were unknown to the boys. After passig the bridge, Juarez asked for Pat's jacket. Pat replied that he was cold. After leaving the freeway, the boys could not understand the conversation of the defendants because they were speaking Spanish. Ted testified that the driver was drunk, that some of the other defendants appeared to be drunk, and there were beer cans in the automobile. The defendants had been drinking beer. After the automobile left the freeway, Juarez again asked for Pat's jacket, and then Pat felt a sharp point at the back of his neck. Then Juarez again asked for the jacket, and Pat replied that he was cold. Juarez said, 'Would you rather be cold or cold stiff?' Pat gave the jacket to him. Juarez also asked for Pat's shirt, and Pat gave it to him. Then Juarez took Pat's wallet.
During the time Juarez was taking those things from Pat (who was in the front seat), Lopez asked Ted (who was in the rear seat) for his jacket. Then Ted, who had heard Juarez ask Pat if he would rather be cold or cold stiff, gave his jacket to Lopez.
After those things had been taken from the boys, the automobile stopped and the boys got out, and the automobile went away. The boys had been in the automobile about ten minutes. They telephoned the police. Later that evening, when the defendants were arrested in Long Beach, defendant Lopez was wearing one of the jackets, and defendant Cardona was wearing the other jacket. Pat's wallet was found under the right front seat of the automobile, and his shirt was found in the rear seat.
Ted testified that defendant Saldivar did not speak to him, or touch him, or take anything from him; Saldivar did not speak to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hines
...a section 1118.1 motion for acquittal is not an appealable order. (People v. Rocovich (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 489, 490; People v. Aguilar (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 662, 663.) Relying on Richardson v. United States (1984) 468 U.S. 317 (Richardson) and People v. Hatch (2000) 22 Cal.4th 260 (Hatch),......
-
Brown v. Justice's Court of Carson Tp., Ormsby County
...v. State, 78 Nev. 326, 372 P.2d 466 (1962); People v. Wilson, 60 Cal.2d 139, 32 Cal.Rptr. 44, 383 P.2d 452 (1963); People v. Aguilar, 174 Cal.App.2d 662, 344 P.2d 880 (1959); State v. Roberts, 106 Ohio App. 30, 153 N.E.2d 203 (1957); People v. Goldman, 13 A.D.2d 552, 213 N.Y.S.2d 573 (N.Y.1......
-
People v. Hawk
...not have appealed from the denial of either motion itself (§ 1237; People v. Rocovich (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 489, 490; People v. Aguilar (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 662, 663), we see no reason the matter may not be reviewed on appeal from the judgment (cf. People v. Peter (1932) 125 Cal.App. 657, ......
-
People v. Smith
...55 P. 581; People v. Etie, 119 Cal.App.2d 23, 258 P.2d 1069; People v. Goldstein, 146 Cal.App.2d 268, 303 P.2d 892; People v. Aguilar, 174 Cal.App.2d 662, 344 P.2d 880.) She contends that the evidence is uncontradicted that all participants thought the marriage was legal and that there was ......