People v. Bolt

Citation265 Cal.App.2d 614,71 Cal.Rptr. 511
Decision Date11 September 1968
Docket NumberCr. 15141
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Colonel BOLT, Defendant and Appellant.

Albert D. Silverman, Canoga Park, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Larry Ball, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

FOURT, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction on three counts of robbery.

In an information filed in Los Angeles on May 26, 1967, Colonel Bolt was charged in count 1 with robbing Albert Judson and Rapid Transit District of personal property on or about March 16, 1967; in count 2 with robbing Donald Robinson and Rapid Transit District of personal property on or about April 10, 1967; and in count 3 with robbing Frank Huizar and Rapid Transit District of personal property on or about April 28, 1967. It was further alleged in each count that Bolt, at the time of the commission of the offense therein charged was armed with a revolver. Defendant pleaded not guilty. The cause was heard before a judge without a jury. Defendant was found guilty as charged in each count, the robbery in each instance was found to be in the first degree and defendant was sentenced to the state prison. A timely notice of appeal was filed.

A resume of some of the facts is as follows: Albert Judson on March 16, 1967, at about 10 p.m. and thereafter was a bus operator for the Southern California Rapid Transit District (hereafter referred to as Transit District). At about 10:15 p.m. at 52nd Street and Long Beach in Los Angeles, Bolt entered the bus and said: 'This is a holdup. Give me all your money.' Judson in response to the demand unlocked the money changer, removed the paper money from his shirt pocket and handed the money to Bolt who at the time wielded a revolver. Bolt took about $70 from Judson's person. Bolt was positively identified by the driver as being the robber.

Donald Robinson, a bus operator for the Transit District, was on duty at about 7 p.m. on April 10, 1967, at or near 82nd Street and San Pedro Street. Bolt robbed Robinson at that time of about $24. Bolt was armed with a revolver. Bolt was positively identified as being the robber.

Frank Huizar, a bus operator for the Transit District, on duty at about 7:40 p.m. on April 28, 1967, at the corner of 69th Street and Broadway, was robbed by Bolt of certain money and a coin changer. Bolt wielded a gun during the robbery. Bolt was positively identified as being the robber.

Appellant now asserts that the lineup procedure and the subsequent photograph display in which he was identified by each of the drivers were improperly staged and that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment. There is no merit to either of appellant's contentions.

The record discloses that each driver positively identified appellant in court as the man who had robbed him. Appellant makes no showing which in anywise links the lineup, or the photographs to the incourt identification.

Appellant apparently places great reliance on what is said in People v. Caruso, 68 Cal.2d ---, a 65 Cal.Rptr. 336, 436 P.2d 336. The facts of the case at hand and the facts in Caruso are in nowise...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • People v. Neal
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 15, 1969
    ...(Fn. omitted.)' (P. 384, 88 S.Ct. p. 971.) (See also People v. Laursen, 264 A.C.A. 1069, 1080--1081, 71 Cal.Rptr. 71; People v. Bolt, 265 A.C.A. 692, 694, 71 Cal.Rptr. 511.) Accordingly, where the identification process is so suggestive as to possibly lead to mistaken identification a denia......
  • People v. Ross
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 9, 1969
    ...might have been factors in Jaeke's identification of defendant, either at the first or second trial. (Cf. People v. Bolt, 265 Cal.App.2d 614, 615--616, 71 Cal.Rptr. 511.) Indeed, there is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. Jaeke identified defendant from the group of photographs withi......

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