People v. Ragsdale
| Decision Date | 08 February 1960 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3630 |
| Citation | 177 Cal.App.2d 676,2 Cal.Rptr. 640 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Benny W. RAGSDALE and Jerry Jay Underhill, Defendants and Appellants. |
Charles L. Barnard, San Francisco, for appellants.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Arlo E. Smith, Preble Stolz, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.
Appellant is represented by court-appointed counsel who has presented his arguments with commendable zeal and lawyer-like completeness. Appellant Ragsdale and his co-defendant Underhill were charged by indictment with the felony denounced by Penal Code, § 288a (oral sexual copulation). Defendant Underhill's appeal has been voluntarily dismissed. The two defendants were prisoners in San Quentin Prison at the time the alleged offense occurred. There was explicit eyewitness testimony of the commission of the prohibited act in a prison cell on March 9, 1958. Forthwith commencing on that day the defendants were disciplined for the offense as a violation of prison regulations by being placed in solitary confinement. The indictment charging this offense was returned by the grand jury on September 15, 1958. After the close of the evidence one of the jurors was confined to his bed by illness. The two defendants personally, their counsel and the prosecuting attorney all stipulated that the case might be decided by the eleven remaining jurors and the jury as so constituted returned its verdict of guilty as charged.
Counsel presents three arguments for reversal: 1. The appellant's right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the Constitutions of California and the United States was violated by the lapse of over six months in returning the indictment; 2. The trial by eleven jurors violated the rights guaranteed by section 7, Article I, California Constitution and Penal Code, § 1123; 3. As applied to persons confined in prison Penal Code, § 288a is an unconstitutional violation of the due process clauses of the state and federal Constitutions.
1. The ready answer to the argument that appellant was not speedily brought to trial is that no objection was made at the trial on that ground and that being so it is now too late to raise that question for the first time on appeal. People v. Jordan, 45 Cal.2d 697, 708, 290 P.2d 484. But passing this consideration the provision of the California Constitution upon which appellant relies (Cal.Const. Art. I, § 13) guarantees 'the party accused' a speedy trial. Appellant was not a 'party accused' within the meaning of this section until the indictment of the grand jury was returned. People v. Jordan, supra, 45 Cal.2d 697, 708, 290 P.2d 484. Appellant seems to claim additionally that he was 'arrested' on March 9, 1958 and his right to a speedy trial then arose. An arrest is 'taking a person into custody.' Penal Code, § 834. Since appellant was already in custody the conduct of the prison officers in disciplining him for violation of prison rules was not an arrest. Whatever rights to a speedy trial appellant may have had were governed by Penal Code, § 1381. Osmulski v. Superior Court, 169 Cal.App.2d 444, 337 P.2d 520. There is no showing that appellant ever made the demand for a trial required by that section.
2. Appellant's claim that he could not constitutionally or under Penal Code, § 1123 consent to trial by a jury of less than twelve in a felony case is foreclosed by the previous decisions. People v. Clark, 24 Cal.App.2d 302, 74 P.2d 1070, hearing in Supreme Court denied; People v. Williams, 128 Cal.App.2d 458, 465, 275 P.2d 513; People v. Patterson, 169...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pilcher, 57756
...85 Cal.Rptr. 718, 726 (1970); People v. Roberts, 256 Cal.App.2d 488, 495, 64 Cal.Rptr. 70, 74 (1967); People v. Ragsdale, 177 Cal.App.2d 676, 679, 2 Cal.Rptr. 640, 641--642 (1960). The marriage relationship is not only a valid basis for classification, it is the only rational ground for any......
-
Com. v. Wasson
...State v. Bateman, 113 Ariz. 107, 547 P.2d 6 (1976); Carter v. State, 255 Ark. 225, 500 S.W.2d 368 (1973); People v. Ragsdale, 177 Cal.App.2d 676, 2 Cal.Rptr. 640 (1st Dist.1960) and Critchlow v. State, 264 Ind. 458, 346 N.E.2d 591 Proscribing sodomy is clearly within the legitimate authorit......
-
People v. Jacobs
...supra, 181 Cal.App.2d 577, 580--581, 5 Cal.Rptr. 477; People v. Garmon, 177 Cal.App.2d 301, 303, 2 Cal.Rptr. 60; People v. Ragsdale, 177 Cal.App.2d 676, 678, 2 Cal.Rptr. 640; Osmulski v. Superior Court, 169 Cal.App.2d 444, 445, 337 P.2d Section 1381, in relevant part, provides that a person......
-
Carter v. State
...is, but that it should be, within its province. See People v. Hurd, 5 Cal.App.3d 865, 85 Cal.Rptr. 718 (1970); People v. Ragsdale, 177 Cal.App.2d 676, 2 Cal.Rptr. 640 (1960); People v. Massey, 137 Cal.App.2d 623, 290 P.2d 906 In some mystical manner, appellants have woven together various u......
-
Narrative and jurisprudence in state courts: the example of constitutional challenges to sex conduct regulation.
...Appendix of Cases 1960-1965 Estes v. State, 195 N.E.2d 471 (Ind. 1964) (adult male sodomized 12 year old male). People v. Ragsdale, 2 Cal. Rptr. 640 (Ct. App. 1960) (consensual fellatio between two San Quentin inmates; due process challenge Perkins v. North Carolina, 234 R Supp. 333 (W.D.N.......