People v. Spates, Cr. 6436
| Citation | 53 Cal.2d 33,346 P.2d 5 |
| Decision Date | 10 November 1959 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6436 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Respondent, v. James SPATES, Appellant. |
Earl Klein, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John S. McInerny, Dep. Atty. Gen, for respondent.
After trial before the court without a jury, defendant appeals from a judgment of guilty of (a) robbery in the first degree and (b) attempted robbery in the first degree.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the record discloses that on the morning of February 28, 1958, defendant and Harold Langdon robbed a liquor store at 7528 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles. The two men, each armed with pistols, separately entered the store shortly after it opened for business and threatened the proprietor with their pistols. They then tied him up and took approximately $60 from his cash register and his wallet, containing some $15. At the trial, the owner identified defendant as one of the two men who had robbed him.
On March 8, 1958, defendant and Harold Langdon attempted to rob the dry goods store of Maurice Block at 1721 E. 103 Street, Los Angeles. Langdon entered the store first about 8 p. m., and distracted the attention of one of the clerks by asking to see a white sweater. While the clerk was at the rear of the store showing a sweater to Langdon, defendant entered and stuck a pistol against Mr. Block's body. Mr. Block grabbed defendant's pistol and a struggle ensued, during which another customer came to Mr. Block's assistance and together they disarmed defendant, who fled from the store and managed to elude his pursuers. He was subsequently arrested, and Mr. Evans, the customer who had assisted Mr. Block, identified defendant as the robber.
Defendant presents these questions on appeal:
First. Did he effectively waive his right to a trial by jury?
Yes. Defendant contends (a) that his purported waiver of a jury trial was qualified in such a manner as to make it no waiver at all and (b) that the trial court committed prejudicial error by not fully explaining to him the nature of his action in waiving a jury trial. These contentions are devoid of merit.
(a) The record shows that when defendant's case was called for trial on May 27, 1958, he personally waived his right to a jury trial. The exact proceedings are as follows:
Mr. Osterman: We will waive a jury today, your Honor.
The Court: You represent
Mr. Osterman: Langdon, your Honor.
The Court: Which is Mr. Langdon?
The Defendant Langdon: Here, sir.
The Court: Mr. Langdon, do you waive your right to a trial by jury, and want to be tried by the judge without a jury?
The Defendant Langdon: Yes, providing it stays in your court, your Honor.
The Court: And Mr. Spates, do you likewise waive your right to a trial by jury, and want to be tried by the judge?
Mr. Arak: Your Honor, with respect to the defendant Spates, I would ask only that it go over a short time for a continuance, since the defendant is in custody. We are ready for trial today, and have seven witnesses in court. If it may go over for a short period of time, we have no objection and we will waive a jury provided it remains in this courtroom.
The Court: That is all I am asking now. Do you, Mr. Spates, waive your right to be tried by a jury, and want to be tried by the judge without a jury?
The Defendant Spates: I do, your Honor.
The Court: And do you join, counsel?
Mr. Arak: Join in the waiver.
The Court: Do the People join?
Mr. Nathanson: The People join, your Honor.
The Court: As to both these waivers?
Mr. Nathanson: Yes, your Honor.
The record shows that defendant expressly and explicitly waived his right to a jury trial, and the fact that he stated the waiver was conditional on the case remaining before the judge then presiding does not result in its being ineffective. (People v. Langdon, 52 Cal.2d 425, 341 P.2d 303; People v. Pughsley, 74 Cal.App.2d 70(1) et seq., 168 P.2d 27; People v. Bastio, 55 Cal.App.2d 615, 618, 131 P.2d 614.)
(b) There is nothing in the record to support the proposition that the trial court should have explained to defendant the nature and possible consequence of his action in waiving a jury trial. Defendant was represented by counsel, and he fails to show anything in the record that indicates he or his counsel was misled as to the result which might occur from his waiving a jury trial. Defendant not only was represented by counsel but, according to the record, had been before the criminal courts on at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Meneley
...times and places and against different victims (People v. Polk, 61 Cal.2d 217, 230, 37 Cal.Rptr. 753, 390 P.2d 641; People v. Spates, 53 Cal.2d 33, 36, 346 P.2d 5). Similarly, within the meaning of section 954, offenses are 'of the same class' if they possess common characteristics or attri......
-
People v. Ketchel
...here is that all three defendants were charged with committing the two crimes alleged in the indictment. (Cf. People v. Spates (1959) 53 Cal.2d 33, 36, 346 P.2d 5; People v. Chapman (1959) 52 Cal.2d 95, 97, 338 P.2d 428.) We find no abuse of discretion. (People v. Eudy (1938) 12 Cal.2d 41, ......
-
People v. Chambers
...against multiple defendants where the charges have 'a common element of substantial importance in their commission.' (People v. Spates, 53 Cal.2d 33, 36, 346 P.2d 5, 7; People v. Chapman, 52 Cal.2d 95, 97, 338 P.2d 428; People v. Williams, 189 Cal.App.2d 29, 36-37, 11 Cal.Rptr. 43.) The com......
-
People v. Pike
...commission of the offenses. (People v. Kemp (1961) 55 Cal.2d 458, 475 (11), 11 Cal.Rptr. 361, 359 P.2d 913; accord, People v. Spates (1959) 53 Cal.2d 33, 36 (3), 346 P.2d 5; People v. Chessman (1959) 52 Cal.2d 467, 492 (12, 13), 341 P.2d 679.) Here it appeared that the gun with which Pike c......