People v. Akers
| Decision Date | 17 July 1956 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 1070 |
| Citation | 299 P.2d 398,143 Cal.App.2d 224 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Charles Thomas AKERS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Charles Thomas Akers, in pro. per.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant and appellant, aged 42, was convicted by a jury on a charge of committing lewd and lascivious acts on a boy, 11 years old, in violation of section 288 of the Penal Code, in one count, and in a second count of the crime of sex perversion (oral copulation) in violation of section 288a of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to State's Prison, sentences to run concurrently on each count.
It does not appear from the record that a motion for new trial was made. Accordingly, the attempted appeal from an order denying such a motion must be dismissed.
The boy, Michael, here involved, testified, generally, that he was selling newspapers at a prominent corner in San Diego, near an inn or beer parlor, about 4:30 p. m., and that he solicited a sale of one of his papers to defendant, who was just entering the inn to buy a drink of beer; that after defendant came out, the boy, not recognizing him, again asked him to buy a paper and defendant remarked 'Come over to my room (across the street) and I will buy all of your papers.' Michael picked up about 20 papers and started to follow the defendant. Defendant remarked, 'Walk a little ways behind, about six paces.' When they arrived, defendant unlocked the door to his room and asked the boy to let him see his penis. The boy then described in particular defendant's conduct. In general, it consisted of helping the boy unzip his trousers and expose his penis and, for about five minutes, he committed the act of copulating the boy's penis with defendant's mouth. Thereafter the defendant told the boy to take off his clothes and sit on the bed and a similar act occurred for the next five minutes. Defendant then got up and went over to a drawer in the dresser, secured some pictures of nude women, and showed them to the boy. Defendant undressed himself except for his socks and then asked for the boy to pick out one of the pictures he liked best and made a vile suggestion as to it. Another similar act of copulation took place while they were in the nude on the bed and then defendant changed his position and started kissing Michael on the lips, sucking his nipples on his chest, and hugging him. He placed Michael's hand on defendant's private parts. He told Michael not to tell anyone and asked him if he would like to be his son and if he would, he would not have to sell newspapers any more and he would buy him a new bicycle. Michael described the sensation he felt during these occurrences and said he had never had such acts committed on him before. Defendant gave the boy only $1.50 for his 20 papers, which sold for 10cents each, and said he had no more money left but if Michael would come back at 7:00 o'clock, he would give him $5.00. Finally, the boy told defendant he wanted to leave and defendant committed another similar act of copulation. Thereafter the boy dressed, opened the door and left with his 20 papers. Defendant was, at the time, still undressed except for his socks. Michael crossed the street and told the police, who had been called at the suggestion of another news boy who saw the early part of this episode and was curious about the absence of Michael from the corner at that hour. He testified he first saw Michael walking 'sort of behind Mr. Akers toward the rooming house' and that Michael had previously told him the defendant was going to buy all of his papers.
Two police officers heard the story above related by Michael and proceeded with him to the room, knocked on the door, and defendant inquired as to who was there. They replied, 'police officers', and defendant opened the door. Defendant was nude at the time and before accusation was made, defendant remarked that it was a 'bum rap' and that someone was trying to 'frame' him. One officer took Michael out of the room. The other officer then noticed the nude pictures, some on the floor and others on the bed. Defendant was then informed of the boy's story and the nature of the charge. He admitted the boy had been in the room and that he had given him some money. Defendant was taken to jail and later stated he saw the boy at the corner that evening and told him he would buy all of his papers and that the boy later came to his room while he was dressing and he gave him $1.00 and told him to sell his papers to someone else; that the door was open or left ajar about one foot all of this time. He testified showing the boy the pictures and denied the acts. Later he signed a written statement that he had been drinking quite heavily; that after he agreed to buy all of the boy's papers, the boy followed him to his room where the boy became interested in some art pictures that defendant had.
Defendant testified that he agreed to buy all of the boy's papers and the boy went down the street and gathered up some more; that he did not have sufficient change to satisfy him; that he invited him to his room where he thought he had enough money to pay him and found that he had only $1.00 and that the boy argued with him about his refusal to buy all his papers and he told him to come back at 7:00 o'clock and he would have the money. He further testified that at all times the blinds on the porch window were up. In rebuttal, the landlady said she noticed that about this time the blinds had been pulled down in defendant's room, that the door to his room was closed and that when she previously made defendant's bed there was no evidence of pictures in the room or on the bed.
As we construe the contentions of appellant on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cline
...Cal.Rptr. 778 (dictum); People v. Loignon (1958), 160 Cal.App.2d 412, 420, 325 P.2d 541 (§§ 288 and 288a); and People v. Akers (1956), 143 Cal.App.2d 224, 227--228, 299 P.2d 398 (§§ 288 and This case does not involve the situation where multiple punishment is prohibited for a substantive cr......
-
People v. Bothuel, D004552
...never be subject to separate punishment. (See, e.g., People v. Blevins (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 64, 204 Cal.Rptr. 124; People v. Akers (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 224, 299 P.2d 398.) Just as in the case with two or more defined acts of the same character, an undefined act is not incidental to a defi......
-
People v. Thomas
...Gonzales, 151 Cal.App.2d 112, 115, 311 P.2d 53; People v. Sylvia, 54 Cal.2d 115, 123, 4 Cal.Rptr. 509, 351 P.2d 781; People v. Akers, 143 Cal.App.2d 224, 228, 299 P.2d 398; People v. Hanz, 190 Cal.App.2d 793, 12 Cal.Rptr. 282; People v. Rogers, 150 Cal.App.2d 403, 416, 309 P.2d 949; People ......
-
People v. Williams
...from the articles themselves being admitted. People v. Citrino, 46 Cal.2d 284, at page 288, 294 P.2d 32, at page 34; People v. Akers, 143 Cal.App.2d 224, 299 P.2d 398. Defendant contends that it was error to permit the reading to the jury of the charge of a previous conviction of felony. Wh......