State v. Ballez

Decision Date03 May 1967
Docket NumberNo. 1728,1728
Citation102 Ariz. 174,427 P.2d 125
PartiesSTATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Jesse BALLEZ, Appellant.
CourtArizona 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.

BERNSTEIN, Chief Justice.

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:

'An act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different sections of the laws may be punished under either, but in no event under more than one. An acquittal or conviction and sentence under either one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other.'

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
28 cases
  • Wyoming State Bd. of Examiners of Optometry v. Pearle Vision Center, Inc.
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • January 4, 1989
    ...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
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • December 19, 2014
    ...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
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • March 15, 1984
    ...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
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • November 8, 1973
    ...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 ......
  • 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