People v. Miles

• Decision Date: 22 April 1969
• Docket Number: Cr. 3035
• Citation: 77 Cal.Rptr. 89,272 Cal.App.2d 212
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lorenzo MILES and Lonny Prince, Defendants and Appellants.

Page 89

77 Cal.Rptr. 89

272 Cal.App.2d 212

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lorenzo MILES and Lonny Prince, Defendants and Appellants.

Cr. 3035.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.

April 22, 1969.

Hearing Denied June 18, 1969.

[272 Cal.App.2d 214] Richard M. Hippard, San Rafael, for defendant and appellant miles.

Bob N. Krug, Loma Linda, for defendant and appellant Prince.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Phillip G. Samovar, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

OPINION

TAMURA, Associate Justice.

By information Prince (also known as Lynell Johnson), Miles and Byrd were jointly charged with attempted robbery (Pen.Code, § 211) and driving or taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent (Veh.Code, § 10851.). Miles was charged with being armed at the time of the offense and also with two priors. Defendants pleaded not guilty and waived a jury.

On motion of the district attorney, Prince's trial was severed from that of the other two. He was tried first and found guilty on both counts. Thereafter Miles and Byrd were jointly tried by the same judge who tried Prince and were found guilty on both counts. The court made no finding on the allegation that Miles was armed but did find that he had suffered two prior convictions as alleged. Applications for probation were denied and defendants were sentenced to state prison, sentences on each count to run concurrently. Prince and Miles have appealed from the judgments of conviction. ¹

PRINCE APPEAL

On December 9, 1966, defendant Miles went into Gross Furs, a store owned by Mr. and Mrs. Rosenberg, and stated that he was looking for a fur for his wife. After looking at some pieces, including one which Mr. Rosenberg brought out from a vault, Miles stated that he would be back later. On December 10 he returned to the store driving a red station wagon. He was accompanied by defendants Prince, Byrd and a 'bushy-haired' man. Mrs. Rosenberg identified defendant Prince as one of the occupants of the vehicle on that occasion. Miles entered the store, looked at some furs, showed one piece to the other men who were still in the car and asked to see the one Mr. Rosenberg had previously removed from the vault. Rosenberg became suspicious and told his wife to go out for help. At this point a customer entered. Mr. Rosenberg asked her to remain in the store and engaged her in conversation. Meanwhile a neighbor, presumably called by Mrs. Rosenberg, entered the store and pretended to be a customer. Miles thereupon asked Rosenberg for permission to use the telephone. When Miles dialed the telephone, Rosenberg was close enough to tell that no one answered. However, Miles stated that he called for his wife but that a man kept answering. Miles then left the store.

On the morning of December 12 the men returned again in a red Chevrolet station wagon. Mr. Rosenberg told one of his employees, Mrs. Olson, to lock he back door and sent her out of one of the other doors. The 'bushy-haired' man was standing guard outside at the door and as Mrs. Olson came out he grabbed her but she managed to escape. ² As Mrs. Olson left the store she observed a red and white station wagon parked on the street with a Negro man sitting at the driver's seat. Meanwhile Mr. Rosenberg left the store to call the police,

Mrs. Rosenberg testified that on the morning of December 12 defendant Miles and Byrd entered the store and requested to see the owner to put a deposit on a fur. She observed a 'bushy-haired' man outside standing guard at one of the doors. Mrs. Rosenberg offered to help Miles and Byrd but they insisted on seeing the 'owner.' When she told them that he would be back later, Byrd pulled a gun out of his pocket and Mrs. Rosenberg stepped aside. Miles and Byrd walked to the back of the store and the next words Mrs. Rosenberg heard were, 'Let's get out of here.' The two then left by the front door.

Stanley Bowman of the traffic division heard an all-points bulletin to be on the look-out for a vehicle bearing license No. OBC 398. He observed a red and white 1957 Chevrolet station wagon bearing license No. QBC 398 which was occupied by three persons. When he turned on his red light the vehicle accelerated and he pursued it. Eventually the station wagon drove off the road and into a wash at a speed of approximately 90 miles per hour and came to rest at a small bank. The occupants jumped out and started running. The officer fired several shots at the suspects and Byrd and Miles stopped. Assistance arrived and Prince was also apprehended. During the chase the officer observed several articles being thrown from the vehicle. In a subsequent search of the area the officers discovered two guns.

Mr. Hawkins testified that he was the owner of a red and white station wagon license No. QBC 398, that on December 10 his vehicle was missing, that he had not given anyone permission to drive it, and that the vehicle defendants were driving during the chase belonged to him. It was also stipulated that if a certain witness were called, he would testify that on December 10 he saw a red and white station wagon bearing license No. QBC 398 parked near Gross Furs. It was also stipulated that if another witness were called, he would testify that he saw a Negro man drive off in Hawkins' automobile on December 10.

At the time the three were booked, Prince had twelve cents on his person, Byrd three cents and Miles.$8.08. None of them had any blank checks on his person.

Officer Adamson testified that shortly after Prince was arrested he was warned of his rights and interrogated. During the interrogation Prince stated: On December 10 he was approached by defendant Miles in Los Angeles to be a 'spot man' for a fur job in San Bernardino. Miles stated that 'they would pay (Prince) about twenty-five hundred dollars,' so he, Prince, agreed to go along. On December 12 Prince, Miles and Byrd drove to San Bernardino in a 1957 Chevrolet, parked the car, got into a red and white Chevrolet station wagon, drove to the fur store and parked. Byrd and Miles got out and told Prince to remain in the car and to honk the horn if he saw the police. In about five minutes Byrd and Miles returned, Miles took the wheel, and as they were driving they were pursued by the police. They eventually came to a stop in a wash and were apprehended. Prince knew that there was a gun in the first car but did not know which one of the three took it when they changed to the red and white Chevrolet station wagon.

Adamson held a second interview with Prince on December 13, which interview was taped. After being warned of his rights Prince stated that Miles told him the reason they left the fur store was 'the people were acting funny * * * '(T) he man ran out of the door and the woman after her. * * * " Prince also stated 'Now, I don't know if Lorenzo (Miles) was going to try to con the man with a check or con the man to take it off or what, you know, robbery. * * * Whatever happened, he wasn't ready for it. They were inexperienced, the four of us. It seems like he went in and with something other than robbery in his mind.' The remainder of Prince's statements at that interview was substantially the same as that given at the first interrogation.

Prince did not take the stand or present any evidence in his defense.

He now seeks a reversal on the following grounds: (1) The evidence was insufficient to support his conviction on either count; (2) the corpus delicti was not established prior to the introduction of his admissions; (3) inadequacy of representation. The contentions are without merit.

There was substantial evidence to support his conviction of attempted robbery.

Robbery is defined as the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by force or fear. (Pen.Code § 211.) The elements of attempt are specific intent to commit a particular crime and a direct act done towards its commission. (People v. Snyder, 15 Cal.2d 706, 708, 104 P.2d 639; People v. Stites, 75 Cal. 570, 575, 17 P. 693; People v. Martell, 197 Cal.App.2d 195, 197, 16 Cal.Rptr. 918.) Intent to steal may be proved by inference from all the circumstances of the case. (People v. Hall, 253 Cal.App.2d 1051, 1054, 61 Cal.Rptr. 676; People v. Ross, 229 Cal.App.2d 344, 346, 40 Cal.Rptr. 296.) As to defendant Prince, his admissions to the police were sufficient evidence of his intent to be a lookout for the robbery and, hence, an accomplice. He was also identified as being with Miles on a previous visit to the fur store on December 10. On December 12 when the police gave chase and arrested defendants, Prince was one of the men apprehended. The court could infer an intent to rob on December 12 from the fact that the 'bushy-haired' man grabbed one of the employees as she left the store; that the man with defendant Miles pulled a gun; that they were driving a car not their own; that they fled at 90 miles per hour when chased by police; and that they had no money or blank check with which to put a deposit on a fur if that were their true purpose in coming to the store on December 12.

Direct acts toward the accomplishment of the robbery were present. The acts of proximity need not include the last proximate act for the completion of the crime. It is sufficient that the overt acts reach far enough toward the accomplishment of the offense to amount to the 'commencement of its consummation.' (People v. Lanzit, 70 Cal.App. 498, 505, 233 P. 816; People v. Gibson, 94 Cal.App.2d 468, 471, 210 P.2d 747; People v. Parrish, 87 Cal.App.2d 853, 856, 197 P.2d 804.)

There was substantial evidence to support Prince's conviction of attempted robbery.

There was likewise substantial evidence to support his conviction for driving or taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent. The owner testified that the car...