People v. Hill

• Decision Date: 01 April 1983
• Docket Number: Cr. 13773
• Citation: 190 Cal.Rptr. 628,141 Cal.App.3d 661
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Joseph Clarence HILL, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 628

190 Cal.Rptr. 628

141 Cal.App.3d 661

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Joseph Clarence HILL, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 13773.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

April 1, 1983.

Quin Denver, State Public Defender, Jeffrey J. Stuetz, Deputy State Public Defender, Elizabeth A. Anderson, Panel Atty., San Diego, for defendant and appellant.

George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Steven H. Zeigen, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

BUTLER, Associate Justice.

A jury convicted Joseph Clarence Hill of kidnap for ransom or extortion (Pen.Code, § 209(a)) ¹, burglary (§ 459), attempted robbery (§§ 664 and 211) and kidnap (§ 207), and found he used a firearm in committing each offense. Hill admitted two prior felony convictions within the meaning of section 667.5(b).

Hill was sentenced to life with possibility of parole for kidnap for ransom with an additional two years for firearm enhancement and one year for each of the two prior felony convictions to run consecutively. The following terms were merged with the life sentence under section 654: the midterm of two years for burglary and two years for a firearm enhancement, the midterm of two years for attempted robbery and two years for a firearm enhancement and the midterm of four years for simple kidnap and two years for a firearm enhancement.

Hill's appeal challenges (1) the propriety of his admitting two prior felony convictions, (2) erroneous jury instructions, and (3) sufficiency of the evidence as to the asportation element of kidnap. He contends the offense of kidnap for ransom is unconstitutionally vague. Hill also asserts the prosecutor committed misconduct by referring to punishment in both argument and closing argument.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On February 28, 1981, at approximately 3:30 a.m., Hill entered a Jack-in-the-Box restaurant located at Euclid Avenue in San Diego, with a gun in hand. Hill demanded all the safes be opened. Two employees told Hill the safes could not be opened because they did not have the keys. Hill picked up Perette Jackson who was attempting to hide behind the counter and said she was his ticket out of the store. Hill told the store manager Siverand he would take Jackson across the street and Siverand was to bring the money to him. Holding a gun against Jackson's side, Hill took her across Euclid Avenue approximately 25 yards to a tree where they waited. Hill told Jackson there had better be $500 in the bag or that he would kill her.

Siverand brought the money to Hill at which time Hill and Jackson walked across the parking lot to Pentecost and then walked southbound to Federal. They walked on Federal toward the John Adams Apartments.

Hill threatened to kill Jackson if he saw any policemen but after walking a little further past the apartments, Hill let Jackson go.

Hill was arrested two weeks later on March 16, 1981, after Threat, another employee of the Jack-in-the-Box, saw him in a department store. All the witnesses identified Hill at the trial. At trial, Hill testified on his own behalf that on the night of the offense he left his house at 10 p.m. after an argument with his girlfriend Lillian Jones. He spent the evening drinking and returned at 12:30 a.m. He watched television until he fell asleep. Jones awakened him and they both went to bed for the remainder of the night. Jones' testimony corroborated Hill's alibi.

THE PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS

Hill admitted two New Jersey priors, the first in 1971 for "illegal sale of narcotic drug," and the second in 1977 for robbery. His sentence was enhanced one year for each.

He asks the enhancements be vacated. First, he contends failure of the court to advise of a right to a bifurcated trial on the admissions voids the admissions for lack of a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to bifurcation. He also contends his admission was coerced. Finally, the New Jersey priors concerned offenses which do not include all of the elements of like crimes under California law.

People v. Bracamonte (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 644, 174 Cal.Rptr. 191 (decided five months before Hill's trial), adopts a rule entitling a defendant to a bifurcated proceeding when he denies prior convictions and does not waive a jury trial. There, the defendant moved to bifurcate his trial arguing it would be highly prejudicial to permit the same jury to determine the validity of the priors and the issue of his guilt. The appellate court agreed.

"The unitary procedure, though heretofore accepted in this state, needlessly exposed defendant to serious potential prejudice by revealing his prior criminality without advancing any legitimate state interest. Denial of the bifurcation motion herein also prejudiced defendant by permitting impeachment of his credibility by evidence that he allegedly suffered five previous felony convictions, which evidence was, for the most part, inadmissible under People v. Beagle [6 Cal.3d 441, 99 Cal.Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1] standards, and gave the prosecutor the opportunity to brand defendant 'a professional crook.' " (Id., 119 Cal.App.3d at pp. 649-650, 174 Cal.Rptr. 191.)

Bracamonte declared the right to bifurcation as a judicially declared rule of practice. Hill asks the right to bifurcation be included within the admonishments compelled by In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857, 112 Cal.Rptr. 513, 519 P.2d 561.

Mandatory admonishments are those that are said to be constitutionally compelled (In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449), and those resulting from a judicially declared rule of evidence (People v. Cahan (1955) 44 Cal.2d 434, 282 P.2d 905), a judicially declared rule of practice (People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518, 47 Cal.Rptr. 353, 407 P.2d 265) or a judicially declared rule of criminal procedure (In re Yurko, supra, 10 Cal.3d 857, 112 Cal.Rptr. 513, 519 P.2d 561). Whatever the source or semantic characterization, mandated admonitions protect the accused from relinquishing due process procedural rights concerning the issue of guilt and penal and custodial consequences of a plea.

We need not now determine whether the Bracamonte rule of entitlement to a bifurcated proceeding attains Yurko stature. On the record before us, we conclude Hill's admission of the prior convictions must be set aside. The court's explanation of Hill's right to a jury trial on the issue of prior convictions had the effect of coercing the admissions. Hill was advised if he admitted the priors, the court would exclude them under People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 99 Cal.Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1. By so admitting the felony convictions, the court told Hill, "The jury is not going to know that you have had prior felony convictions." Alternatively, if Hill did not admit the priors, the court told Hill, "The jury is going to know and the district attorney is going to try to prove and will prove that you suffered these felony convictions."

If inadmissible under Beagle, in fairness the court should have told Hill the priors could be contested in a bifurcated trial should the jury find him guilty of one or more of the charged offenses. Hill was "forced to choose between the 'equally unappealing alternatives' of admitting the prior convictions and losing his opportunity to contest their validity or denying them and being faced with the certainty that the state will attempt to prove them at trial, subjecting him to resulting prejudice." (Bracamonte, supra, 119 Cal.App.3d at p. 653, 174 Cal.Rptr. 191.)

As the admissions of the priors must be set aside, we do not consider Hill's further contentions as to the priors.

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Claiming reversible error, Hill attacks jury instructions improperly given, and which should have been given. We conclude the court's failure to instruct on its own as to each and every element of the charged offenses is prejudicial error.

The information charged four counts. Count 1 charged a violation of Penal Code section 209(a), kidnap for ransom or extortion. After giving the requisite specific intent instruction, the court instructed the jury as to the elements of the offense, but failed to give the definition of ransom or extortion.

The court then told the jury Hill was charged with committing the crime of kidnap to commit robbery, a violation of section 209(b). This was an offense that had not been charged. (CALJIC 9.23 and 9.25.) The court instructed:

"This is the definition of kidnapping to commit robbery. The defendant is charged in Count One of the Information with the commission of the crime of kidnapping to commit robbery, a violation of Section 209 of the Penal Code. [p] Any person who, with the specific intent to commit robbery, kidnaps any individual, is guilty of the crime of kidnapping to commit robbery."

The court added:

"Where a person is charged with the crime of kidnapping for the purpose of robbery, it is not necessary to establish that such purpose was accomplished, for a crime of that nature is complete if and when the kidnapping is done for such a purpose."

Hill was charged in count 4 with simple kidnap. The appropriate instruction for simple kidnap is CALJIC 9.19. Instead, the court gave the following instruction (CALJIC 9.20, which covers kidnapping with an underlying offense):

"Every person who, in connection with the commission or attempted commission of the crime of robbery, unlawfully and with physical force moves any other person against his will and without his consent, or unlawfully compels any other person, against his will and without his consent and because of a reasonable apprehension of harm, to move for a substantial distance, that is, a distance more than slight or trivial, is guilty of the crime of kidnapping. [p] In order to prove the commission of the crime of kidnapping, each of the following elements must be proved: [p] 1. That a person was unlawfully moved by the use of physical force or was compelled to move because of a reasonable apprehension of harm, [p...