People v. Williams, No. B058383

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtGRIGNON; BOREN; TURNER
Citation12 Cal.Rptr.2d 243,9 Cal.App.4th 1465
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Charles Edward WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.
Decision Date30 September 1992
Docket NumberNo. B058383

Page 243

12 Cal.Rptr.2d 243
9 Cal.App.4th 1465
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Charles Edward WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.
No. B058383.
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.
Sept. 30, 1992.
Certified for Partial Publication *
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Oct. 22, 1992.
Review Denied Dec. 30, 1992.

[9 Cal.App.4th 1467] Robert F. Howell, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., George Williamson, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Carol Wendelin Pollack, Acting Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Linda C. Johnson, Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen., and Jaime L. Fuster, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

Page 244

GRIGNON, Associate Justice.

Defendant and appellant Charles Edward Williams appeals from a judgment after a jury trial in which he was convicted of three counts of second degree robbery and two counts of grand theft person with findings that two of the victims were 65 years of age or older, that defendant intentionally inflicted great bodily injury on one of the victims, and that he had suffered three prior serious felony convictions. On appeal, he contends: (1) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to suppress pretrial and in-court identifications of him as the perpetrator; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for substitute counsel to present a motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) there is insufficient evidence to support [9 Cal.App.4th 1468] a conviction for one of the counts of grand theft person; (4) the trial court erred in imposing a sentence for the elderly victim enhancement on a subordinate nonviolent felony; and (5) the trial court erred in failing to stay the sentences for two counts of grand theft person pursuant to Penal Code section 654. In the published portion of the opinion, we reverse the conviction of one count of grand theft person and conclude that Penal Code section 654 is inapplicable to the sentence imposed in this case. In the unpublished portion of the opinion, we conclude trial counsel was not ineffective and the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for substitute counsel and imposing a sentence for the elderly victim enhancement. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was convicted in Count 1 of grand theft person of Eileen Crowley on May 28, 1990, in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision 2; in count 2 of second degree robbery of Patricia Bettencourt on May 28, 1990, in violation of Penal Code section 211; in count 3 of grand theft person of Francis Cirrencione on April 30, 1990, in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision 2; in count 4 of second degree robbery of Eliette Strasbourg on April 30, 1990, in violation of Penal Code section 211; and in count 5 of second degree robbery of Theba Heimer on May 26, 1990, in violation of Penal Code section 211. The jury found to be true the allegations that Strasbourg and Heimer were 65 years of age or older within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.9, defendant intentionally inflicted great bodily injury on Strasbourg within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.7, and defendant had suffered three prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a).

Defendant was sentenced to the upper term of five years on count 4 with an additional three years for the great bodily injury enhancement and an additional two years for the elderly victim enhancement. He was sentenced to consecutive one-third the middle term sentences on count 1 (eight months), count 2 (one year), count 3 (eight months), and count 5 (one year). Defendant was further sentenced to an additional consecutive two years for the elderly victim enhancement on count 5 and an additional consecutive fifteen years for the three prior serious felony conviction enhancements. Defendant's prison sentence totalled thirty years and four months.

FACTS

April 30, 1990

At approximately 5:00 p.m. on April 30, 1990, 72-year-old Frances Cirrencione and 68-year-old Eliette Strasbourg had just completed their shopping [9 Cal.App.4th 1469] at a Von's market on Third Street. They returned with their groceries to Cirrencione's car. Cirrencione put her groceries on the backseat of the car, threw her purse onto the front passenger seat, sat down in the driver's seat, and opened the passenger door. Defendant approached her, pushed her back in her seat, and grabbed her purse from the passenger seat. Cirrencione got out of the car and screamed for help.

Defendant went around the back of the car to the passenger side where Strasbourg was standing. Strasbourg was holding a purse. Strasbourg saw defendant approach and she began to run. Defendant ran after her, grabbed her purse, and

Page 245

pushed her. She fell and broke her kneecap.

Jane Raymond heard Cirrencione screaming and saw defendant steal Strasbourg's purse. Raymond saw defendant leave in a blue gray New Yorker or Lincoln automobile with license No. 1MIS375.

At trial, Cirrencione and Strasbourg identified defendant as the person who stole their purses. Raymond testified that defendant resembled the thief somewhat, but Raymond was not 100 percent certain. Cirrencione also identified defendant at a physical lineup on September 5, 1990. Strasbourg identified someone other than defendant at a photographic lineup on August 10, 1990, but identified defendant at a physical lineup on September 5, 1990. Raymond identified defendant at a photographic lineup on June 11, 1990, and at a physical lineup on June 21, 1990. 1

May 26, 1990

At approximately noon on May 26, 1990, 69-year-old Theba Heimer drove to Jay's Market on Pico Boulevard and parked her car in the parking lot. She began to walk to the store carrying a purse. Defendant ran up to her, grabbed her purse, and knocked her down. Defendant left in a large dark car with license No. 1MIS375. Heimer was unable to identify the robber.

Delilah Gibson heard Heimer scream and saw defendant throw Heimer's purse into a dark gray Lincoln automobile and drive off. Gibson identified defendant as the robber at trial and from a photographic lineup on June 6, 1990. She was unable to identify him at a physical lineup on June 21, 1990. [9 Cal.App.4th 1470] At the preliminary hearing on October 1, 1990, she testified defendant looked like the purse snatcher.

May 28, 1990

At approximately 1:00 p.m. on May 28, 1990, Eileen Crowley and Patricia Bettencourt went to Wherehouse Records on Sepulveda Boulevard to return some tapes. As they were walking towards the store, a grayish Lincoln automobile pulled up beside them. Someone yelled, "Open the trunk." Defendant approached Crowley and took her purse. Bettencourt started to run. Defendant then turned around, overpowered Bettencourt, knocked her down, and dragged her a short distance. Bettencourt and defendant struggled for the purse. Defendant took her purse and fled in a Lincoln automobile. Crowley did not identify defendant. Bettencourt identified defendant at trial and at a photographic lineup on June 5, 1990. At the photographic lineup, Bettencourt said she was 70 percent sure of her identification of defendant. At trial, she stated she was 100 percent sure of her in-court identification. 2

Willard Davidson saw defendant take Bettencourt's purse and get into a car with license No. 1MIS375. Davidson identified defendant at a photographic lineup on August 15, 1990, and a physical lineup on September 5, 1990. 3

Defense

Defendant was arrested on June 2, 1990, driving a gray Lincoln automobile with license No. 1MIS375, which belonged to his mother. This vehicle was reported stolen on April 28, 1990 and recovered on May 1, 1990. Defendant's mother testified that the car was also stolen on May 26, 1990, and recovered on June 2, 1990. She stated she did not report this theft to the police and personally recovered the car on a nearby street. She did state that she believed one of her sons had reported the theft. She also testified defendant had worked at her family's tailoring shop all day on May

Page 246

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
69 practice notes
  • People v. Kwok, No. A074646
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 13, 1998
    ...by substantial evidence. (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 730, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640; People v. Williams (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1465, 1473, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 243; People v. Goodall (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 129, 148, 182 Cal.Rptr. In what has been characterized as a "judicial gloss......
  • People v. Ortega, No. S055216
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • December 17, 1998
    ...because the taking was from the immediate presence but not person; contrasting the robbery requirement]; People v. Williams (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1465, 1471-1472, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 [same]; In re George B. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1088, 1091-1092, 279 Cal.Rptr. To commit robbery but not grand t......
  • People v. Avalos, No. G016193
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 31, 1996
    ...of fact and the trial court's finding will be upheld on appeal if it is supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Williams (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1465, 1473, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 243; People v. Goodall (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 129, 148, 182 Cal.Rptr. The trial court chose count four, possession of......
  • People v. Douglas, No. A122832 (Cal. App. 4/15/2010), No. A122832.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 15, 2010
    ...transaction. (People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 551; People v. Avalos (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1583; People v. Williams (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1465, 1473; People v. Barker (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 921, 941.) "On the other hand, section 654 does not apply when the evidence discloses that a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
69 cases
  • People v. Kwok, No. A074646
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 13, 1998
    ...by substantial evidence. (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 730, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640; People v. Williams (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1465, 1473, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 243; People v. Goodall (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 129, 148, 182 Cal.Rptr. In what has been characterized as a "judicial gloss......
  • People v. Ortega, No. S055216
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • December 17, 1998
    ...because the taking was from the immediate presence but not person; contrasting the robbery requirement]; People v. Williams (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1465, 1471-1472, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 [same]; In re George B. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1088, 1091-1092, 279 Cal.Rptr. To commit robbery but not grand t......
  • People v. Avalos, No. G016193
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 31, 1996
    ...of fact and the trial court's finding will be upheld on appeal if it is supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Williams (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1465, 1473, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 243; People v. Goodall (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 129, 148, 182 Cal.Rptr. The trial court chose count four, possession of......
  • People v. Douglas, No. A122832 (Cal. App. 4/15/2010), No. A122832.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 15, 2010
    ...transaction. (People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 551; People v. Avalos (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1583; People v. Williams (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1465, 1473; People v. Barker (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 921, 941.) "On the other hand, section 654 does not apply when the evidence discloses that a......
  • 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