People v. Figuieredo, Cr. 5466
| Decision Date | 14 December 1956 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5466 |
| Citation | 304 P.2d 161,146 Cal.App.2d 807 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Carl E. FIGUIEREDO and William R. Hagan, Defendants. William R. Hagan, Defendant and Appellant. |
William R. Hagan, in pro. per., for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is an appeal from the judgment, and from the order denying motion for a new trial.
Defendant was accused by information with two counts of robbery. Four prior felony convictions were also alleged. The four alleged priors were admitted. Following a jury trial defendant was adjudged guilty of both counts. Defendant, through counsel, moved for a new trial which motion was denied. Judgment was duly rendered whereupon defendant filed in propria persona a notice of appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial and from the judgment.
The facts are characteristic of such offenses. As to Count I, John H. Lynch was the head clerk for Safeway Markets in Inglewood. Defendant entered armed with a revolver and took $800 from the safe. As to Count II, Joseph Bonelli operated a business in Huntington Park. At the time alleged Bonelli and an employee by the name of Norwood were held up by Hagan and robbed of $250. To describe in detail these robberies would serve no useful purpose. Hagan was identified by the victims.
It is contended by appellant and recited in appellant's brief, 'The following grounds of appeal are:
'(1) That the defendant Hagan was improperly sentenced to two consecutive life imprisonments as an habitual criminal;
'(2) That prejudicial testimony was permitted by witnesses and by the remarks of the Deputy District Attorney, and statements made by the Deputy District Attorney at the trial, which prejudiced the defendant's rights and were contrary to the law of the case as decided in the case of People v. Carl E. Figuieredo and William R. Hagan, 130 Cal.App.2d 498 .'
As to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment there is no question. Also the record reveals that the defendant was not denied a fair trial. However, as recited in respondent's brief, 'The contention that the defendant was improperly sentenced as an habitual criminal presents a serious question of law in view of the record and respondent will consider this matter last.'
Quoting from respondent's brief,
'A sentence of life imprisonment, which follows an adjudication that the defendant is an habitual criminal, is a serious one. The People are required to prove all necessary elements of such an adjudication beyond a reasonable doubt.
'People v. Morton, 41 Cal.2d 536, 539 .
'The question now arises as to what disposition should be made of the instant case. It is clear that the judgment, insofar as it sentences the defendant to imprisonment for the robberies of which he was found guilty, should be affirmed. However, in view of the record herein it appears that the trial court erred in adjudging that the defendant is an habitual criminal because of the lack of proof as to service of separate terms of imprisonment. Although it appears that there is little likelihood that proof may be forthcoming that the defendant served separate terms of imprisonment for the priors charged, it would appear that such finding should be made (on proper proof) by the trial court. In such a case the matter should be remanded to the trial court for a limited trial solely concerning proof of this essential requirement of Penal Code Section 644. As was stated in People v. Morton, supra (41 Cal.2d 536, 544-545 ):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent v. Conser Lee Shaw, Defendant and Appellant, Cr. 4703
...(41 Cal.2d at p. 543, 261 P.2d at p. 527; and see In re McVickers (1946) 29 Cal.2d 264, 270-271, 176 P.2d 40; People v. Figuiredo (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 807, 810, 304 P.2d 161; People v. Allen (1953) 119 Cal.App.2d 365, 367, 259 P.2d 474; and People v. Thornton (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 514, 518......
-
People v. Wiley, S034307
...section 644 fails to support his argument, and actually compels a conclusion to the contrary. The defendant in People v. Figuieredo (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 807, 304 P.2d 161 admitted the alleged prior convictions, was convicted by a jury of the currently charged offenses, and was declared by ......
-
Bevins v. Klinger
...Shinn cites and relies upon In re Pearson, 30 Cal.2d 871, 874, 186 P.2d 401 (1947), and cases cited.3 See also People v. Figuieredo, 146 Cal.App.2d 807, 304 P.2d 161 (1956).4 As authority that admission of the prior convictions is a waiver by defendant, relieving the prosecution from the bu......
-
People v. Cameron
...§ 644; People v. Collins, 228 Cal.App.2d 460, 464, 39 Cal.Rptr. 595.) The jury should find upon this issue. (People v. Figuieredo, 146 Cal.App.2d 807, 809, 304 P.2d 161.) In the case at bench the verdict of the jury on the allegations on each prior conviction found as true merely 'the charg......