People v. Adams

California Supreme Court Mar 24, 1971 No. Crim. 14287Published

Before: Mosk, Sullivan, Burke

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant was entitled to a recall of the remittitur and the vacation of his kidnaping convictions because the movements of the victims were merely incidental to the robberies and did not substantially increase the risk of harm.

Issues

Whether the defendant's movements of victims during robberies constituted kidnaping for the purpose of robbery under the standard established in People v. Daniels.
Whether the defendant is entitled to a recall of the remittitur to vacate his kidnaping convictions.

Disposition. Remanded with directions to recall remittitur and vacate kidnaping counts.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“These movements were merely incidental to the robberies and did not substantially increase the risk of harm beyond that inherent in the robberies themselves.”

“Adams was therefore convicted of kidnaping to commit robbery under a statute which did not prohibit his acts at the time he committed them, and is entitled to a recall of the remittitur in his appeal and an order vacating the judgment on the kidnaping counts.”

Opinion

4 Cal.3d 429 (1971) 482 P.2d 657 93 Cal. Rptr. 745 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

JACK FRANK ADAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. Crim. 14287. Supreme Court of California. In Bank.

March 24, 1971. [430] COUNSEL

Jack Frank Adams, in pro. per., and Herbert E. Selwyn, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, and Philip C. Griffin, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM CASE

OPINION

MOSK, J.

Jack Frank Adams was convicted on three counts of kidnaping for the purpose of robbery (Pen. Code, § 209), two counts of first degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), and one count each of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245) and assault with intent to commit murder (Pen. Code, § 217). It was found that Adams was armed at the time of the commission of the offenses. In June 1969 in an unpublished opinion by the Court of Appeal the judgment was modified by limiting the finding regarding being armed to the counts other than those charging robbery, and as thus modified the judgment was affirmed. In August 1969 we denied a petition for hearing, and in November 1969 certiorari was denied. In December 1969 Adams filed an application with the Court of Appeal for recall of the remittitur, presenting the sole contention that his case should be reconsidered in the light of People v. Daniels (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1119 [80 Cal. Rptr. 897, 459 P.2d 225]. The application was denied, and we granted a petition for hearing and transferred the application to this court.

In the course of robbing a liquor store, Adams and his companion caused two employees to move about the room and to a rear storage area; thereafter, in robbing a service station, they caused an employee to lie on the floor in the lube room. These movements were merely incidental to the robberies and did not substantially increase the risk of harm beyond that inherent in the robberies themselves. (People v. Daniels (1969) supra, 71 Cal.2d 1119, 1139.)

People v. Adams

AI Brief

Opinion

MEMORANDUM CASE

OPINION

MOSK, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

SULLIVAN, J.

BURKE, J.

NOTES

Opinion — Mosk

Concurrence — Sullivan

AI Brief