People v. Johnson, Cr. 14924

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtAISO; STEPHENS, Acting P.J., and REPPY
Citation80 Cal.Rptr. 683,276 Cal.App.2d 232
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Percy Lee JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Docket NumberCr. 14924
Decision Date18 September 1969

Page 683

80 Cal.Rptr. 683
276 Cal.App.2d 232
The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Percy Lee JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Cr. 14924.
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.
Sept. 18, 1969.

Page 684

[276 Cal.App.2d 234] Francis J. O'Neill, 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 Jeffrey T. Miller, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

AISO, Associate Justice.

Defendant Percy Lee Johnson (hereafter 'defendant') and his codefendant Claudio R. Shorey were charged by information with having conspired to commit forgery and grand theft (Pen.Code, § 182, subd. 1, violation). Initially, both pleaded not guilty, but Shorey later changed his plea and pleaded guilty. Defendant waived a jury trial and agreed to submit his cause on the transcript of the preliminary hearing (together with exhibits received and stipulations entered into at the hearing), subject to objections registered at the hearing and the right of either party to produce additional evidence. No additional evidence was offered; defendant did not testify. The trial court found defendant guilty, denied his request for probation, and sentenced him to state prison. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction.

He contends here that (1) he was entrapped, and (2) the evidence is insufficient to establish a conspiracy.

Page 685


(a) Charles W. Lawrence's testimony: He was a detective working for the district attorney's office on August 28, 1967. On that date he was working undercover and occupied rooms 1271 and 1273 at the Statler Hilton Hotel, Los Angeles. Late in the afternoon of that date, defendant came to room 1271, accompanied by a person known only as Dickerson. Lawrence had been informed that Dickerson was supposed to bring defendant to the hotel room.

Defendant discussed with Lawrence the possibility of the latter purchasing some blank county warrants from him. Lawrence[276 Cal.App.2d 235] asked defendant what he had in his possession. Defendant exhibited two envelopes, tearing open one which contained '25 Special Warrants in them,' and said that it would be $1500 cash for the whole package. Lawrence asked him if these were the type of warrants currently being used by Los Angeles County. Defendant assured him that they were.

Lawrence inquired if defendant could assure him that if he purchased the blank warrants he could get 'a facsimile from the source of his supply which would give (him) a check that had already been cashed to use as an exemplar.' Defendant replied that he was not in a position to do that or to give Lawrence any information about it. He said that he had been sent just to deliver the package and to get $1500 for the entire package; that he would sell the whole package or none. Defendant stated that 'his accomplice might be downstairs in the lobby, or he might could (sic) reach him.'

Lawrence permitted defendant to use the phone in the room. Defendant dialed a number and then said he could not reach his party and that he would search for him downstairs. He returned and said that 'he was unable to locate his partner.' He further said that he could arrange a meeting with his partner at which Lawrence could talk to his partner about the information which defendant was unable to supply, and that 'a deal could be made.' Lawrence exhibited several hundred dollars to defendant, and told him that he (Lawrence) was loaded and able to make a purchase, and that he was ready and willing to do business. However, Lawrence made no purchase from defendant.

(b) Other evidence further shows: In the late afternoon or early evening of the next day, August 29, 1967, codefendant Shorey came to room 1273, which Lawrence occupied. Shorey was accompanied by another person, not identified by the evidence. Shorey showed Lawrence some cancelled county warrants of several recent dates to assure Lawrence how he (Shorey) could obtain facsimiles of signatures which could be copied onto the blank warrants. Lawrence stated that, first, he would like to purchase a sample, and then if Shorey could deliver a larger quantity, he (Lawrence) would buy more as he had a great deal of money to spend. Shorey gave Lawrence two blank warrants and five cancelled ones for which Lawrence paid Shorey $200 in two $100 bills, the serial numbers of which had been prerecorded.

Shorey then left after he had agreed to return within the hour with 23 more blank warrants, for which Lawrence was to [276 Cal.App.2d 236] pay an additional $2300. Shorey did return in a little over an hour, bringing some blank warrants in an envelope, and he tendered them to Lawrence. At this juncture, pursuant to prearranged signals, Lawrence's colleagues came into the room and arrested Shorey.

Shorey was a custodian employed by the County of Los Angeles. He worked nights in the Hall of Administration where he had access to all parts of the building, including the auditor controller's office, for purposes of doing his cleaning.

After the earlier transaction with Lawrence, Shorey had stopped at the 'El Rancho Club' bar at 1738 W. Seventh Street, accompanied by another person. There he purchased a round of drinks and used one of the $100 bills received from Lawrence to pay for them, the bill later

Page 686

being retrieved from the bar by the district attorney's office.

Both the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. Remiro, Cr. 8309
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 27, 1979
    ...and other circumstances (People v. Cockrell (1965) 63 Cal.2d 659, 667, 47 Cal.Rptr. 788, 408 P.2d 116; People v. Johnson (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 232, 237-238, 80 Cal.Rptr. 683; People v. Lynam (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 490, 502, 68 Cal.Rptr. 202). Here, the very nature of the Foster murder a plan......
  • Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Board of Com'rs of Dept. of Water and Power of City of Los Angeles
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 18, 1969
    ...real purpose of the Florida act, being the exclusion of foreign cement because of its unfavorable competitive effect upon domestically[276 Cal.App.2d 232] produced cement on the Florida market, were brought to the attention of the court. The California Buy American Act is a statute which is......
  • People v. Norwood, Cr. 20825
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 19, 1972
    ...of the evidence (see, e.g., People v. Mosher (1969) 1 Cal.3d 379, 395, 82 Cal.Rptr. 379, 461 P.2d 659; People v. Johnson (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 232, 239, 80 Cal.Rptr. 683), we find the conviction amply sustained by the evidence as to count Page 16 Disposition. The judgment is reversed as to ......
  • In the Interest of Cg v. State , S–10–0124.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • February 18, 2011
    ...which have applied these concepts in trials to the court. Simmons v. State, 255 Ark. 82, 498 S.W.2d 870 (1973); People v. Johnson, 276 Cal.App.2d 232, 80 Cal.Rptr. 683 (1969). The function of the finder of fact in cases tried to a court is identical to that in cases tried to juries, and the......
  • 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