People v. Fuentes, Cr. 28842

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtASHBY; KAUS, P.J., and STEPHENS
Citation134 Cal.Rptr. 885,64 Cal.App.3d 953
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Felipe Alejo FUENTES and Mario Hernandez, Defendants and Appellants.
Docket NumberCr. 28842
Decision Date17 December 1976

Page 885

134 Cal.Rptr. 885
64 Cal.App.3d 953
The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Felipe Alejo FUENTES and Mario Hernandez, Defendants and Appellants.
Cr. 28842.
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.
Dec. 17, 1976.

[64 Cal.App.3d 954] Patricia A. Shanahan, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant Felipe Alejo Fuentes.

Clifford Douglas, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant Mario Hernandez.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., S. Clark Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Norman H. Sokolow and Howard J. Schwab, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

ASHBY, Associate Justice.

In an information filed September 26, 1975, defendants Felipe Alejo Fuentes and Mario Hernandez were charged in count I with [64 Cal.App.3d 955] robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. Fuentes was charged also in count II with possession of a dirk or dagger in violation of Penal Code section 12020. Both defendants waived trial by jury and were tried by the court and each was found guilty of 'grand theft person' in violation of Penal Code section 487, subd. 2, a lesser included offense than that charged in count I. Fuentes was also found guilty as charged in count II. Hernandez and Fuentes were committed to the California Youth Authority.

About 2 a.m., August 2, 1975, Officer Robert L. Portillo who was off duty and on his way home saw Fuentes and Hernandez approach the victim, George Martinez, from behind. Fuentes struck the victim in the back of the head with a 'long, pointed object with a duct-taped handle.' When the victim fell to the pavement, both Fuentes and Hernandez went to their knees beside him. The officer saw Fuentes remove a wrist watch and a wallet from the victim. He also saw Hernandez 'rummaging through the pockets of the victim.'

Page 886

The defendants then began running, and Officer Portillo pursued them. He drew his revolver and shouted, 'Police.' A security guard joined the pursuit and they apprehended the defendants a short distance from the site of the crime. Defendants were searched for weapons. Fuentes had the duct-taped dirk and another copper cylindrical-shaped pointed object in his waistband. The victim's wallet and wrist watch were in Fuentes' pockets.

Fuentes contends that there was no evidence to show that the dirk was concealed and argues that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • People v. Dooley, Cr. 3804
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 14, 1980
    ...companionship with the principal perpetrator, and conduct before and after the offense (such as flight). (See People v. Fuentes (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 953, 956, 134 Cal.Rptr. 885; In re Lynette G. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1094-1095, 126 Cal.Rptr. 898.) Since determination of abettor status ......
  • Commonwealth v. Montgomery, No. 4 EAP 2019
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 21, 2020
    ...a weapon is concealed if it is hidden from ordinary observation; absolute invisibility to others is not required); People v. Fuentes , 64 Cal.App.3d 953, 134 Cal. Rptr. 885, 886 (1976) (holding that the mere fact that "some portion of the handle" of the weapon may have been visibl......
  • People v. Flores, F050958 (Cal. App. 7/30/2007), F050958
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 30, 2007
    ...a dirk to be guilty of violation of ... section 12020, subdivision (a).'" (Id. at p. 75, quoting People v. Fuentes (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 953, 955.) "The mere fact that some portion of the handle [of the defendant's dirk] may have been visible makes it no less a concealed weapon.&qu......
  • People v. Galvan, B291485
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 18, 2020
    ...72, 75 [rejecting argument that knife was not concealed because the tip protruded from defendant's pocket]; People v. Fuentes (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 953, 955 ["The dirk was in [defendant's] waistband. The mere fact that some portion of the handle may have been visible makes it no less a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • People v. Dooley, Cr. 3804
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 14, 1980
    ...companionship with the principal perpetrator, and conduct before and after the offense (such as flight). (See People v. Fuentes (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 953, 956, 134 Cal.Rptr. 885; In re Lynette G. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1094-1095, 126 Cal.Rptr. 898.) Since determination of abettor status ......
  • Commonwealth v. Montgomery, No. 4 EAP 2019
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 21, 2020
    ...a weapon is concealed if it is hidden from ordinary observation; absolute invisibility to others is not required); People v. Fuentes , 64 Cal.App.3d 953, 134 Cal. Rptr. 885, 886 (1976) (holding that the mere fact that "some portion of the handle" of the weapon may have been visibl......
  • People v. Flores, F050958 (Cal. App. 7/30/2007), F050958
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 30, 2007
    ...a dirk to be guilty of violation of ... section 12020, subdivision (a).'" (Id. at p. 75, quoting People v. Fuentes (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 953, 955.) "The mere fact that some portion of the handle [of the defendant's dirk] may have been visible makes it no less a concealed weapon.&qu......
  • People v. Galvan, B291485
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 18, 2020
    ...72, 75 [rejecting argument that knife was not concealed because the tip protruded from defendant's pocket]; People v. Fuentes (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 953, 955 ["The dirk was in [defendant's] waistband. The mere fact that some portion of the handle may have been visible makes it no less a ......
  • 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