People v. Curtis

• Decision Date: 21 October 1965
• Docket Number: Cr. 10155
• Citation: 47 Cal.Rptr. 123,237 Cal.App.2d 599
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Percy Eugene CURTIS, Defendant and Appellant. . Division 4, California

Page 123

47 Cal.Rptr. 123

237 Cal.App.2d 599

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Percy Eugene CURTIS, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 10155.

District Court of Appeal, Second District. Division 4, California.

Oct. 21, 1965.

Leon Goldin, Los Angeles, under appointment by the District Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gilbert F. Nelson, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

KINGSLEY, Justice.

Defendant was charged by information with ten counts of armed robbery, three counts of forcible rape, and two counts of kidnaping for the purpose of robbery. After a jury trial, he was found guilty on six of the ten robbery counts and the three rape counts; as to the kidnaping for robbery counts (Pen.Code § 209), the jury returned verdicts of simple kidnaping (Pen.Code § 207), as a lesser and included offense. The trial court, holding that the two kidnapings were incidental to two of the rapes, merged the kidnaping counts with those rape counts and sentenced only on the latter. State prison sentences were imposed and defendant has appealed.

At his request, we appointed counsel for him on appeal. Appointed counsel has filed herein a brief in which, after summarizing the proceedings and the evidence, he concludes that there are no issues which can be raised on the appeal. Because of the seriousness of the offenses, and the length of the total sentences imposed, ¹ we have made an independent examination of the record. After such examination, we agree with counsel that there is no basis for a reversal.

During the period from December 1962, until October 1963, there had occurred a series of robberies of bars in the southern portion of Los Angeles. Included among these robberies were four at Martin's Grand Cafe, located at the intersection of Grand and Jefferson, one at Mel's Blizzard Room, located at 11034 South Vermont Avenue, and two at the La Fiesta Cafe, located at 10709 South Vermont Avenue, all in the County of Los Angeles. In each case, the general modus operandi was the same: At about midnight, ² a male person, wearing a stocking mask, would enter the bar, announce a holdup, direct the bartender (or barmaid) to place the contents of the cash register either in a cigar box or in a sack, order the patrons to throw their valuables on a pool table, the counter or the floor, order the victims into a restroom, and then depart. In the three cases where a woman customer or barmaid was present, the robber, after herding his male victims into the rest-room, committed an act of rape on the woman--in two instances forcing her to accompany him outside the premises for that purpose. It was the People's theory that all eight robberies, ³ and the rapes and kidnapings attendant on some of them, were committed by the same person and that that person was the defendant.

It was never contended that the offenses charged did not occur as charged, except that defense counsel objected that the kidnapings were not shown to have been for the purpose of robbery but for the purpose of rape (a position which the ultimate jury verdict adopted), and that the kidnapings were thus part of...