People v. Atchley

Decision Date20 April 1955
Docket NumberCr. 2607
Citation132 Cal.App.2d 444,282 P.2d 160
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C. L. ATCHLEY, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

C. L. Atchley, in pro. per.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., by G. A. Strader, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

VAN DYKE, Presiding Justice.

Appellant was charged by information with the crime of murder and with the crime of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit murder. He was represented by counsel. A jury was selected and the trial proceeded for several days, during which time the prosecution was engaged in putting on its case. A brief statement of the showing made by the prosecution follows: Appellant and Helen Hilliard had been living together for a considerable time. Shortly before the happening of the events with which we are here directly concerned Helen and appellant had separated and she had married a Mr. Hilliard who was residing on a farm owned and operated by Richard Moore. Appellant undertook to persuade Helen to return to him notwithstanding her marriage to Hilliard. This she refused to do. Due to his actions Moore had told appellant to stay away from Moore's place. Appellant thereupon sent Neva Dilday, a woman acquaintance, to see Helen on the Moore place and to intercede with her to return to appellant. Again Helen refused. Shortly thereafter appellant again sent Neva Dilday to intercede with Helen. The two women were sitting on the front porch of the Moore residence and Moore was in the back part of the house. The two women heard Moore exclaim 'No, No, Don't do that'. The words were followed by a shot and Moore came staggering through to the front porch bleeding from a gunshot wound. He went down the steps a little way along the path to the public road and there fell to the ground. Helen went to him and knelt beside him in an endeavor to aid him. Defendant came around the house carrying a shotgun and a pistol. He walked up to Helen and shot her in the arm. She begged him to cease shooting, promising she would return to him as he had requested. Nevertheless, he shot her through the back as she knelt on the ground. He then fired a second shot into the prostrate body of Moore. Moore died from the effects of the gunshot wounds, but Helen recovered. By this time Neva Dilday had fled the scene and returned to the car in which both had come to the Moore place. Appellant followed her to the car and drove to a neighbor's home. He handed over the guns, stating that he had killed two people. He requested the neighbor to 'call the law'. On his way there in the car he had told Neva Dilday that he had killed Moore and Helen and that he ought to have killed two more people while he was at it.

When the foregoing evidence had been received appellant through his counsel asked leave of court to withdraw the pleas which he had entered and this request was granted. He thereupon pleaded guilty to both counts and the trial court, as shown by its minutes, thereupon discharged the jury, set a day for the passing of sentence, and on that day, and based on the plea of guilty to the murder count and on the evidence that far received, found the appellant guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The sentence on the count charging assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit murder was for the period prescribed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Michaels v. Chappell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • December 12, 2014
    ...required the consent of the prosecution. A defendant, however, may plead guilty to murder without specifying the degree (People v. Atchley (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 444, 446 ), leaving it to the court to decide the degree of the crime. (§ 1192.)The Attorney General points out that section 1009,......
  • People v. Michaels
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 18, 2002
    ...the consent of the prosecution. A defendant, however, may plead guilty to murder without specifying the degree (People v. Atchley (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 444, 446, 282 P.2d 160), leaving it to the court to decide the degree of the crime. (§ 5. The instruction is based on People v. Morales, su......
  • People v. Terry
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 19, 1962
    ...information as a first degree murder charge was upheld in People v. Jordan, 45 Cal.2d 697, 709, 290 P.2d 484, and People v. Atchley, 132 Cal.App.2d 444, 446, 282 P.2d 160. Moreover appellant had a transcript of the preliminary proceedings so as to appreciate in the main the circumstances of......
  • People v. Michaels
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • July 18, 2002
    ...required the consent of the prosecution. A defendant, however, may plead guilty to murder without specifying the degree (People v. Atchley (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 444, 446), leaving it to the court to decide the degree of the crime. ( 5 The instruction is based on People v. Morales, supra, 48......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT