People v. Bruce
| Decision Date | 28 May 1956 |
| Citation | 297 P.2d 437,141 Cal.App.2d 854 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Samuel D. BRUCE, Defendant and Appellant. Crim. 3210. |
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., John S. McInerny, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Samuel D. Bruce, appellant, in pro. per.
Defendant Bruce appeals from the judgment convicting him jointly with the defendants Davis and Shrimp on two counts of robbery in the first degree after a trial without a jury. He was charged separately with the robbery of one Yee Wah but after his conviction of the other robberies the information charging the robbery of Yee was dismissed.
Yee testified that about 1 a. m. on April 29, 1955, while he was walking on Stockton Street in San Francisco the appellant Bruce approached him, struck him and took some money from his person. There was another man with Bruce on the sidewalk and a third man in a parked automobile. After robbing him appellant got into the automobile and it was driven away. Yee did not identify the other men.
The witness Ziobro testified that at about 1:30 a. m. of the same morning his wallet and pen and pencil set were taken forcibly from him by two men in the vicinity of Folsom and Third Streets. He could not identify his assailants.
The witness Henderson testified that about 2:15 a. m. on the same day on Hyde Street near O'Farrell a man jumped out of an automobile, threatened him with a pistol and took from him about $4 in silver and his checkbook and a memorandum book. He saw two other persons in the automobile but could not identify them. He identified his assailant as the defendant Shrimp. As Shrimp was leaving in the automobile a sailor arrived and called out the license number of the car.
The testimony of the sailor, Michaels, given at the preliminary hearing was read after proof that he was then in service overseas. Michaels also identified Shrimp as Henderson's assailant and fixed the license number of the automobile as 7B11298. Michaels also saw two other persons in the car whom he could not identify. He walked to the Northern Police Station and reported the robbery, giving the license number of the automobile.
At about 2:35 a. m. Officers Martin and Horan, acting on the information given by Michaels, stopped an automobile bearing license number 7B11298 in which the three defendants were riding. A search of Davis disclosed on his person the wallet taken from Ziobro and a pen and pencil set similar to Ziobro's. A pistol was found in the car which Davis admitted was his.
Appellant testified that he was in his hotel room from 8:30 in the evening of April 28, 1955, until 2:15 a. m. when he went down to the lobby where he met Davis and Shrimp by chance. The three had just started in Davis' car to go to a restaurant when they were arrested. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mitchell
...v. Encinas, 186 Cal.App.2d 12, 16, 8 Cal.Rptr. 624; People v. Contrerai, 172 Cal.App.2d 369, 371[1-6], 341 P.2d 849; People v. Bruce, 141 Cal.App.2d 854, 856, 297 P.2d 437.) SUFFICIENT Defendant contends there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the judgment. He specifically claims there......
-
Neal, In re
...Under that law, the trial court was empowered only to impose sentence for the term prescribed by law (see People v. Bruce (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 854, 857, 297 P.2d 437), and the Adult Authority fixed the actual length of the prison term. (See former §§ 1168, 3020.) In addition, a sentence un......
-
U.S. v. Dancy
...1977). A judgment was valid if it, like Dancy's, ordered imprisonment "for the term prescribed by law." See People v. Bruce, 141 Cal.App.2d 854, 857, 297 P.2d 437 (1956). Section 1168 did permit the trial court, on the recommendation of the CDC Director, to recall its judgment sua sponte wi......
- People v. Williams, Cr. 3153