People v. Timmons, Cr. 14188

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Writing for the CourtMOSK; TOBRINER; BURKE; McCOMB; SULLIVAN; KAUS, J., participated. WRIGHT
Citation4 Cal.3d 411,93 Cal.Rptr. 736,482 P.2d 648
Decision Date24 March 1971
Docket NumberCr. 14188
Parties, 482 P.2d 648 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Edward Arthur TIMMONS, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 736

93 Cal.Rptr. 736
4 Cal.3d 411, 482 P.2d 648
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Edward Arthur TIMMONS, Defendant and Appellant.
Cr. 14188.
Supreme Court of California,
In Bank.
March 24, 1971.
Rehearing Denied April 22, 1971.

Page 737

[482 P.2d 649] [4 Cal.3d 412] Edward Arthur Timmons, in pro per.

Paul M. Posner, Los Angeles, under appointment by Supreme Court, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., and James H. Kline, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

MOSK, Justice.

Edward Arthur Timmons was found guilty on two counts of kidnaping for the purpose of robbery (Pen.Code, § 209) and two counts [4 Cal.3d 413] of second degree robbery (Pen.Code, § 211). The judgment was affirmed (People v. Timmons (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 671, 75 Cal.Rptr. 212); we denied a petition for hearing in April 1969, and certiorari was denied in June 1969. In October 1969 our decision in People v. Daniels, 71 Cal.2d 1119, 80 Cal.Rptr. 897, 459 P.2d 225, was filed. Thereafter Timmons filed an application with the Court of Appeal for recall of the remittitur or 'other appropriate relief,' presenting the sole contention that his case should be reconsidered in the light of Daniels. The Court of Appeal denied the application, and we granted a petition for hearing and transferred the application to this court.

The facts of the case are aptly summarized as follows in the Court of Appeal opinion (269 Cal.App.2d at pp. 672--673, 75 Cal.Rptr. at p. 212--213):

'(F)or a period of about five weeks prior to January 19, 1968, Ralph Stewart (appellant's codefendant) worked for Lloyd's Market in South Gate and from such employment he learned about who of the employees went to the bank for the company and the routine which was followed in bringing money from the bank to the market. Stewart talked with appellant about holding up the employees on three different occasions. Stewart had a Pontiac automobile carrying Georgia license plates. A day or so before January 19, 1968, Stewart and appellant drove around in Stewart's car in the area of the market and on occasions parked close by the market for the purpose of checking at about the time the employees of the market would be arriving from the bank. Stewart and appellant entered into an agreement in effect to rob the employees of the market of the money they were delivering from the bank to the market and agreed that Stewart would get a portion of the loot for doing the driving of his car.

'A Mr. Jeffery who lived close by the market saw some unusual activity involved in the driving and parking of the Pontiac car with the Georgia license plates and took down the numbers of the license. After the robbery Jeffrey gave the license number to the manager of the store.

'On the morning of January 19, 1968, at about 11:15 o'clock Stewart drove with appellant to the market area. Appellant got out of the car with a satchel and Stewart drove on to a designated point about five blocks away where he waited for appellant. It was the understanding that appellant was to hold up Mr. Baird and Miss Stephens, employees of the market, who were to pick up certain money at the bank for the market.

'Baird and Miss Stephens drove in a car from the bank to the parking lot of the market with about $15,600 in two bags, one bag of currency and one of coins. As they parked in the lot appellant, carrying a

Page 738

[482 P.2d 650] satchel, walked toward the car. His headgear consisted of a motorcycle rider's helmet. [4 Cal.3d 414] Appellant said to Baird, 'This is a holdup.' He got into the car and told Baird to drive out of the parking lot saying further, 'Do as I tell you and I won't hurt anybody. * * * Back up the car and pull out of the parking lot and go to the right.' Appellant also told Baird to change the rear view mirror and instructed both Baird and Miss Stephens not to look back. Appellant asked for the money and the sacks of money were delivered to him. Appellant directed Baird to drive, and said 'At that fire hydrant, pull up, stop the car, and open the door, * * * When I get out, drive straight ahead.' Baird proceeded as directed.'

When they reached the fire hydrant, Timmons got out with his satchel and walked down the street, where he was picked up by Stewart in the Pontiac. Baird and Miss Stephens, who drove on in their car, were not harmed in any way.

There is no material dispute as to the facts. The issue, therefore, is whether Timmons' act of compelling Baird and Miss Stephens to drive some five...

To continue reading

Request your trial
73 practice notes
  • People v. Allen, No. A072610
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 11, 1997
    ...simply coincidental. As a further illustration of this point, Justice Mosk, the author of Daniels, clarified in People v. Timmons (1971) 4 Cal.3d 411, 415-416, 93 Cal.Rptr. 736, 482 P.2d 648, that the increased risk to the victim necessary for aggravated kidnapping is limited to the increas......
  • People v. Stanworth, Cr. 15018
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 3, 1974
    ...crime is normally exposed'; it does not refer to the increased risk that the crime of robbery will be committed. (People v. Timmons (1971) 4 Cal.3d 411, 414, 93 Cal.Rptr. 736, 738, 482 P.2d 648, 650.) However, 'acts of removing the victim from public view do not In themselves substantially ......
  • People v. Laursen
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 21, 1972
    ...officer at the escaping vehicle in which the victim was riding. These facts demonstrably meet the test of People v. Timmons (1971) 4 Cal.3d 411, 93 Cal.Rptr. 736, 482 P.2d 648 where the court 'Rather, we intended to refer to an increase in the risk that the victim may suffer significant phy......
  • People v. Beaumaster, Cr. 18527
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 27, 1971
    ...harm over and above that necessarily present in the crime of robbery itself. These criteria were further clarified in People v. Timmons, 4 Cal.3d 411, 414, 93 Cal.Rptr. 736, 482 P.2d 648, where the court said that in Daniels, it was referring to an increase in the risk that the victim may s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
73 cases
  • People v. Allen, No. A072610
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 11, 1997
    ...simply coincidental. As a further illustration of this point, Justice Mosk, the author of Daniels, clarified in People v. Timmons (1971) 4 Cal.3d 411, 415-416, 93 Cal.Rptr. 736, 482 P.2d 648, that the increased risk to the victim necessary for aggravated kidnapping is limited to the increas......
  • People v. Stanworth, Cr. 15018
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 3, 1974
    ...crime is normally exposed'; it does not refer to the increased risk that the crime of robbery will be committed. (People v. Timmons (1971) 4 Cal.3d 411, 414, 93 Cal.Rptr. 736, 738, 482 P.2d 648, 650.) However, 'acts of removing the victim from public view do not In themselves substantially ......
  • People v. Laursen
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 21, 1972
    ...officer at the escaping vehicle in which the victim was riding. These facts demonstrably meet the test of People v. Timmons (1971) 4 Cal.3d 411, 93 Cal.Rptr. 736, 482 P.2d 648 where the court 'Rather, we intended to refer to an increase in the risk that the victim may suffer significant phy......
  • People v. Beaumaster, Cr. 18527
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 27, 1971
    ...harm over and above that necessarily present in the crime of robbery itself. These criteria were further clarified in People v. Timmons, 4 Cal.3d 411, 414, 93 Cal.Rptr. 736, 482 P.2d 648, where the court said that in Daniels, it was referring to an increase in the risk that the victim may s......
  • 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