People v. Conway, Cr. 14900

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Citation76 Cal.Rptr. 251,271 Cal.App.2d 15
Decision Date24 March 1969
Docket NumberCr. 14900
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Donald Mine CONWAY, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 251

76 Cal.Rptr. 251
271 Cal.App.2d 15
The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Donald Mine CONWAY, Defendant and Appellant.
Cr. 14900.
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.
March 24, 1969.
Hearing Denied May 21, 1969.

Page 252

[271 Cal.App.2d 16] Richard H. Levin, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.

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

WRIGHT, Associate Justice.

Defendant Donald Mine Conway was charged with a violation of section 459 of the Penal Code, burglary, a felony. A motion to set aside the information under section 995 of the Penal Code was heard and denied. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty and trial on the cause was set for December 13, 1967. On November 28, 1967, a motion to advance the cause from the trial date was granted for the purpose of hearing a writ of habeas corpus and a motion to relieve the public defender and substitute the defendant in propria persona. Both the application for the writ and the motion were denied. The original trial date of December 13, 1967 remained. On December 15, 1967, after two days trailing by reason of the court's congested calendar counsel for defendant and for the People and the defendant personally waived trial by jury and pursuant to stipulation the cause was submitted upon the transcript of the preliminary[271 Cal.App.2d 17] hearing, each side reserving the right to call additional witnesses. The court read the transcript of the preliminary hearing, defendant and a witness for the defendant testified for the defense. The court found the defendant guilty of burglary and fixed the same as in the second degree. A probation report was ordered; a motion for a new trial was heard and denied; and the court denied the application for probation, sentencing the defendant to serve 90 days in the county jail. The defendant appeals from the judgment.

Defendant contends as follows:

(1) That there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction;

(2) That the trial court's denial of his motion to proceed in propria persona violated his constitutional rights; and

(3) That defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated.

We have concluded that each contention is without merit.


On May 19, 1967, at about 1:00 p.m., defendant and one Grady Charles Brown (Brown) entered Kay's Men's Store in Torrance. Brown was carrying a suitcase. Defendant told Modesto Ponce DeLeon (DeLeon) that he wanted to see a suit. Defendant was shown one and then proceeded to a rear dressing room, tried on the suit and returned with it to that portion of the store where merchandise was displayed. Defendant told DeLeon that he would purchase the suit. DeLeon, noticing that Brown was missing, inquired of the defendant 'Say, where's your friend?' Defendant replied 'I think he wanted to see a suit himself. So, he's back there trying on a suit.' DeLeon, knowing that he had not shown any clothing to Brown, told the defendant to wait for the purchase order to be written up. DeLeon then went back to the dressing room and discovered Brown with several suits in his hand. He also noticed that the suitcase was bulging. DeLeon left the dressing room, returned to the location where he had last seen the defendant and discovered that defendant had taken off the suit and that he had departed from the store. Brown came out of the dressing room without the suitcase and quickly left the store. Upon opening the suitcase, DeLeon found five new sport coats in the same, all of which were the property of Kay's Men's Store. DeLeon did not give either the

Page 253

defendant or Brown premission to take any of the clothing from the store or to place any of it in the suitcase.

Defendant returned to his car in the parking lot adjacent to [271 Cal.App.2d 18] the store and as he was slowly approaching the exit Brown was observed running across the parking lot and entering the car driven by defendant. DeLeon left the store to give chase, observed a California Highway Patrol officer and informed him of the incident. The officer gave chase, stopped the car and returned with defendant and Brown to the store where they were placed under arrest.

Defendant took the stand in his own behalf and testified that he had entered the store with $93.72 in cash with the intention of purchasing a suit; that he had observed Brown find the suitcase (also described as a brief case) in some trash near a pole in the shopping center. Defendant further testified that he had been a friend of Brown for about ten years, that they had been together for about four hours and that he had never been in Kay's Men's Store prior to the day of his arrest. Defendant further testified that he decided to leave the store when an employee told him 'The guy that you was with, we think that he has committed something, and it would be best for you to leave if you don't want to be involved in it.' Defendant further testified that he left the store, returned to his car, waited a few moments for Brown and was driving out of the lot when Brown called for him to stop. Defendant testified that as he did not know the area at all he drove into a dead end street where he was stopped by the highway patrol officer. Defendant called Grady Charles Brown as a witness on his behalf. Brown testified that his case had 'already been handled' and for that reason there...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Hankla v. Municipal Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 26, 1972 deducted in determining the statutory period.' (242 Cal.App.2d at p. 292, 51 Cal.Rptr. at p. 384. See also People v. Conway (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 15, 22, 76 Cal.Rptr. 251; and Cody v. Justice Court, supra, 238 Cal.App.2d 275, 283 and 285--286, 286, 47 Cal.Rptr. 716.) Moreover, in Dulsky ......
  • Owens v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • October 23, 1980
    ...754, 761-762, 17 Cal.Rptr. 102; People v. Flores (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 313, 320, 68 Cal.Rptr. 669; and People v. Conway (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 15, 22, 76 Cal.Rptr. 251.) Harrison, the first of these cases, set forth the argument and the other three cases merely deferred to its authority in t......
  • People v. Wetmore, Cr. 19738
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • September 26, 1978
    ...out that burglary requires an entry with specific intent to commit larceny or felony. (See Pen.Code, § 459; People v. Conway (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 15, 18, 76 Cal.Rptr. 251; People v. Gant (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 101, 115, 60 Cal.Rptr. 154.) The reports of Drs. Colburn and Cherkas, counsel arg......
  • Owens v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 13, 1979
    ...196 Cal.App.2d 754, 761, 17 Cal.Rptr. 102; People v. Flores (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 313, 320, 68 Cal.Rptr. 669; People v. Conway (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 15, 22, 76 Cal.Rptr. 251. Each of these cases held that in computing the 60-day period allowed by section 1382, delay requested by defendant m......
  • 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