People v. Severino

Decision Date21 December 1953
Docket NumberCr. N
Citation122 Cal.App.2d 172,264 P.2d 656
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesPEOPLE v. SEVERINO. o. 5040.

Arnold Severino, in pro. per.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Dep. Atty. Gen., Roy A. Gustafson, Dist. Atty., Ventura County, Albert J. Holzhauer, Jr., Dep. Dist. Atty., Ventura County, Ventura, for respondent.

WHITE, Presiding Justice.

In an amended information filed by the District Attorney of Ventura County defendant was charged in Count I with the crime of conspiracy to solicit for a prostitute and in Count II with the offense of soliciting for a prostitute.

Following the entry of not guilty pleas as to both counts, the cause proceeded to trial before a jury which returned verdicts finding defendant guilty on both counts. Probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to state prison. This appeal is from the judgments of conviction.

Viewing the facts elicited at the trial in a light most favorable to the prosecution, as we are required to do following a guilty verdict, we find in the record evidence that on January 31, 1953, while visiting a house of prostitution known as the 'Casa Blanca Bungalows', in Ensenada, Mexico, defendant met Richard Hocking and his wife, Bettina Hocking. Mr. Hocking was employed as night manager and Mrs. Hocking worked as a prostitute for the house of prostitution. Defendant and Richard Hocking talked of several 'deals' including running guns from the United States into Mexico; selling defendant's automobile, which was registered to defendant but legally owned by a finance company, in Mexico and then reporting it stolen upon defendant's return to the United States so that defendant 'could pick up payment off it'; and whether Hocking knew where defendant and a companion of his could 'pick up marijuana'. Hocking offered to assist defendant in selling his automobile. Defendant, a member of the United States Air Force and stationed at the Oxnard Air Force Base, Oxnard, California, told Hocking that he would return to Ensenada on Monday night and that he would try to sell his car in Mexico and return to Oxnard by bus. Defendant then drove to his base in Oxnard, arriving there about two o'clock Monday morning, February 2.

About ten o'clock that same morning defendant prepared to return to Mexico. An Air Force acquaintance, Donald S. Hamilton, agreed to share expenses with defendant and accompany him to Mexico. They drove to Ensenada, Mexico, arriving at the 'Casa Blanca Bungalows' at about 9:30 o'clock Monday evening. They were met at the motel by Richard Hocking who stated that it was getting 'too hot' for him in Ensenada and that he wanted to get a ride back 'across the line' with defendant in his car. Defendant and Richard Hocking held a conversation in Hocking's room at the motel. Mrs. Hocking was in the room for a few minutes until her husband asked her to leave. Donald Hamilton was present and overheard a portion of the conversation but did not participate in it. Defendant discussed the possibilities of opening a house of prostitution in Oxnard, California, how many servicemen were there and how easy it would be to make money in Oxnard by opening such a house. Hocking appeared to be in agreement with what defendant had to say. Defendant stated that he would transport Hocking to Oxnard for the purpose of setting up a house of prostitution. Donald Hamilton left the room and defendant and Hocking continued with their conversation. Defendant agreed to take Mrs. Hocking along with them to Oxnard. Mrs. Hocking packed her clothes. Defendant had an act of sexual intercourse with Mrs. Hocking and paid her $3.

Defendant, Hamilton, and the Hockings left Ensenada, and defendant drove the automobile. During the trip the subject of conversation between defendant and Hocking was prostitution and how to operate it successfully. Hamilton never entered into or participated in this discussion.

On the way to Tijuana, defendant and Hocking talked about opening a house of prostitution in Oxnard. In Tijuana, defendant and Mr. and Mrs. Hocking made an unsuccessful search to find girls to take to Oxnard for the purpose of prostitution. After defendant crossed the border at Tijuana, he suggested that Mrs. Hocking could be used for the purpose of prostitution in connection with their plans if other girls couldn't be found. Although there was no specific plan agreed upon as to how they were to operate upon arrival in Oxnard, defendant and the Hockings continued to express their ideas on the subject of prostitution with a view toward its successful exploitation in Oxnard.

At Malibu Beach, at defendant's request, Hamilton changed places with him and drove the car to Oxnard. When they arrived at Oxnard, defendant was awakened. He directed Hamilton to the Sequoia Hotel. Mr. and Mrs. Hocking registered at the Sequoia Hotel at about 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, February 3, 1953. Hamilton and the defendant returned to the Air Force Base at Oxnard. Hamilton parked the car at the front gate. Defendant remained in the car asleep. Hamilton went on the base in search of his automobile. Four or five hours later Hamilton awakened defendant, who was still asleep in his parked automobile, and asked if he could use defendant's car to locate Hamilton's automobile. Hamilton and defendant went to Camarillo looking for the latter's automobile. They were unsuccessful and defendant requested that Hamilton drive to the Sequoia Hotel. Just before they reached the city limits of Oxnard defendant told Hamilton that he and the Hockings were going to split the money that they made three ways. Defendant offered Hamilton a share of defendant's split if Hamilton would get customers for him. Hamilton replied that defendant 'was crazy to think he could get away with such an idea' and drove defendant to the Sequoia Hotel.

Mr. and Mrs. Hocking got into the automobile and defendant drove around Oxnard. He pointed out several night spots in Oxnard and explained that servicemen frequented those places and that they could go into the bars before closing time, pick out the customers and take them up to the room. As they departed from Oxnard by way of East Fifth Street, defendant pointed to the Pacific Labor Camp and explained that if they couldn't pick up servicemen in Oxnard, they could 'work' the camps until they 'got set on their feet'. As they drove past Rose Road, defendant indicated that Rose Road would be a safe place to work because the police never patrolled that area. Defendant pointed to a six or eight room house near the Air Force Base that would be ideal for a house of prostitution since it was close to the base and the servicemen wouldn't have any great distance to walk.

As they passed the Air Force Base they observed a house trailer. Defendant commented that perhaps they could rent such a trailer, operate out of it and move it from camp to camp. They arrived in Camarillo where Hamilton got out of the defendant's automobile and went away with some friends. This was the last time that Mr. and Mrs. Hocking saw Hamilton. Defendant then returned the Hockings to Oxnard.

The next evening, defendant and Mr. and Mrs. Hocking looked at a house near the Air Force Base that 'looked suitable' for a house of prostitution. Defendant inquired of a lady living adjacent to it and was told that a road was going through and that all the houses along that road were to be moved. That evening definite plans were made to go out the following night to the labor camps. It was agreed between defendant and Hocking that they would go out to the Mexican labor camps and pick up the men from the camps, taking them two at a time. Defendant stated that they could park on Rose Road and use the car to prostitute Mrs. Hocking. The price was to be set at five or ten dollars. If they couldn't get ten dollars, they would take five dollars. Defendant demanded a fifty per cent split of the proceeds of the prostitution because his car was to be used and because his risk was greater due to his being a member of the Air Force.

On Thursday evening, February 5, 1953 a little after eight o'clock, defendant transported Mr. and Mrs. Hocking to the Pacific Labor Camp on East Fifth Street, in Oxnard. Three or four men were standing in front of the gate. Defendant's car was parked across the road from the camp. As three of the men crossed over to defendant's automobile, defendant reminded Mrs. Hocking to charge five dollars and to collect in advance. Speaking in Spanish, Mr. Hocking inquired of the men whether they wanted a girl and told them it would cost five dollars. After a short discussion among themselves, three of the men said they 'wanted to do'. Defendant stated that they could take two of them, bring them back and take some more. Two of the men got into defendant's automobile. Ramon Castillo was seated in the rear seat with Mrs. Hocking and Raimundo Vasquez was seated in the front, next to Mr. Hocking. Defendant started his car, turned around and proceeded east on East Fifth Street. Turning north on Rose Road, defendant parked his car on the left hand side of the road about 150 yards north of East Fifth Street, behind a hedge of trees.

It was dark. Defendant, Hocking and Vasquez got out of the car and walked across the road. Mrs. Hocking asked Castillo for the money and the latter handed her a ten dollar bill. Mrs. Hocking called for change. Defendant walked close to the car and Mrs. Hocking handed the ten dollar bill to defendant who removed his wallet from his pocket and handed the change back to Mrs. Hocking. Mrs. Hocking handed Castillo five dollars change. Mrs. Hocking removed her skirt and panties and placed them on the front seat. Castillo removed his trousers and attempted to have an act of sexual intercourse with Mrs. Hocking. They were unsuccessful and Castillo asked Mrs. Hocking to go outside with him. Mrs. Hocking, carrying a blanket, left the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • People v. Schueren
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 24, 1973
    ...'the defect' in failing to do so may not be of substance. (In re Bramble, 31 Cal.2d 43, 51, 187 P.2d 411; compare People v. Severino, 122 Cal.App.2d 172, 179, 264 P.2d 656 (overruled on another issue in People v. Smith, 44 Cal.2d 77, 80--81, 279 P.2d 33) (wherein it is stated that there is ......
  • People v. Garcia
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 5, 1960
    ...the offenses as distinguished from the identity of the transactions from which they arise.' The court, in People v. Severino, 122 Cal.App.2d 172, at page 184, 264 P.2d 656, at page 664, applied this test in a case very similar to the one at bar. Applying it to the instant case, it is clear ......
  • People v. Walker
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 5, 1959
    ...the point of appeal. People v. Jones, 25 Cal.App.2d 517, 77 P.2d 897; People v. Beck, 71 Cal.App.2d 637, 163 P.2d 41; People v. Severino, 122 Cal.App.2d 172, 264 P.2d 656. Nor do we find merit in appellant's contention that he was deprived of an arraignment and plea on the amended informati......
  • People v. Marshall
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 19, 1957
    ...(1953), 40 Cal.2d 483, 486 (2, 3), 254 P.2d 501; People v. Pierce (1939), 14 Cal.2d 639, 645-646, 96 P.2d 784; People v. Severino (1953), 122 Cal.App.2d 172, 181 (9), 264 P.2d 656.) 6 'Due process of law requires that an accused be advised of the charges against him in order that he may hav......
  • 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