State v. Ballez
| Decision Date | 03 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 1728,1728 |
| Citation | 102 Ariz. 174,427 P.2d 125 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Jesse BALLEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Anthony H. Mason, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert K. Corbin, Maricopa County Atty., for appellee.
Vernon B. Croaff, Public Defender, Grant Laney, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.
Defendant appeals from convictions rendered in the Superior Court of Maricopa County on one count of robbery in violation of A.R.S. § 13--641 and one count of grand theft from the person in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13--661 and 13--663.
On January 3, 1966 Robert Chestney entered a bar in downtown Phoenix. There he became acquainted with a Floyd Garcia who in turn introduced him to three girls who also were present in the bar. At closing time, Chestney, admittedly quite inebriated, agreed to give the girls and Garcia a ride home in his car. After leaving the bar, they were joined by the present defendant who also entered Chestney's car.
Chestney proceeded to drive about the city, making several stops at private residences at the request of his passengers. While stopped at one point, the defendant, who was occupying the center front seat, suddenly began scuffling with, and hitting Chestney. Thereafter the door next to Chestney was opened and he was thrown out onto the pavement by the defendant. He was then, by the use of threats, compelled to surrender his money to defendant and Garcia. Subsequently he had his watch and ring taken from him, and was beaten again, before the defendant and Carcia reentered Chestney's car and drove away, leaving Chestney lying on the pavement. Soon thereafter Chestney was able to notify the police. Less than an hour later the defendant was arrested within a few blocks of the abandoned car.
An information was subsequently filed in Maricopa County Superior Court charging defendant in separate counts with robbery, grand theft auto, and grand theft from the person. The jury convicted him of robbery and grand theft from the person and acquitted him of grand theft auto.
On appeal the defendant contends that his conviction for both robbery and grand theft from the person violates A.R.S. § 13--1641 which provides as follows:
This statute coming to us from the California Penal Code § 654, contemplates a situation in which a single act violates more than one statute and protects the offender against double punishment in such instances. People v. Clapp, 24 Cal.2d 835, 151 P.2d 237. Citing People v. Chessman, 52 Cal.2d 467, 341 P.2d 679, cert. den. 361 U.S. 925, 80 S.Ct. 296, 4 L.Ed.2d 241, we have held in State v. Boodry, 96 Ariz. 259, 394 P.2d 196...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wyoming State Bd. of Examiners of Optometry v. Pearle Vision Center, Inc.
...see Zale Jewelry Co. of Wichita, 298 P.2d 283 and Goldman Jewelry Co., 51 P.2d 995. Compare for more limited contract, State v. Ballez, 102 Ariz. 174, 427 P.2d 125 (1967). See also Ritholz v. Arkansas State Board of Optometry, 206 Ark. 671, 177 S.W.2d 410 (1944); State v. Plymouth Optical C......
-
State v. Reis
...stand under governing legal standards, we generally vacate the conviction resulting in the lesser sentence.3 See State v. Ballez, 102 Ariz. 174, 175, 427 P.2d 125, 126 (1967) (where defendant received two concurrent sentences on two counts "based on a single, definite act, the remedy is to ......
-
Bates v. State
...461 P.2d 637 (1969), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 927, 91 S.Ct. 190, 27 L.Ed.2d 187 (1970). The Arizona court also noted in State v. Ballez, 102 Ariz. 174, 427 P.2d 125 (1967): Because the court in the present case ... sentenced the defendant under the robbery conviction only, with no additional ......
-
State v. Cassius
...act which violates more than one statute. See, Mitchell, supra; State v. Andrews, 106 Ariz. 372, 476 P.2d 673 (1970); State v. Ballez, 102 Ariz. 174, 427 P.2d 125 (1967), and State v. Hutton, 87 Ariz. 176, 349 P.2d 187 As previously noted, appellant, in Cause No. A--22303, was found guilty ......