People v. Meyers

California Court of Appeal Mar 18, 1939 No. Crim. 1659Published

Before: Pullen

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an information charging robbery is sufficient to support a first-degree robbery conviction even without a specific allegation under Penal Code section 969c, as that section pertains to additional sentencing enhancements rather than the definition of the crime itself.

Issues

Whether an information must specifically charge that a defendant was armed with a deadly weapon to support a conviction for first-degree robbery.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and the voluntary nature of the defendants' confessions.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The provisions of this section are cumulative in effect and do not nor were they intended to repeal or amend other code sections where, as here, the punishment is already provided for and accomplishes a like result.”

“The record discloses that these appellants were fairly tried and justly convicted, and no error of law appearing, the judgment and order must be affirmed.”

PULLEN, P. J.

This is an appeal taken by the defendants from a judgment of conviction of robbery in the first degree, and from the order denying a new trial.

The complaining witness, H. Braun, was the proprietor of a liquor store in Sacramento. About 10:30 o’clock on the night of June 30, 1938, it is charged that defendant Laeeombe entered the store with a gun in his hand and pointed it at the complaining witness, compelled him, and later a customer who came into the store, to raise their hands, and while in that position, defendant Meyers entered and took the money from the cash register and also from the person of the complaining witness, amounting in all to approximately $200, and then escaped. Some time thereafter, both Laeeombe and Meyers were apprehended in Denver, Colorado, and returned to Sacramento, where they signed a joint statement admitting the foregoing facts.

In the information filed against these men it is therein charged:

“ . . .

did then and there wilfully and unlawfully and feloniously and forcibly take from the possession and immediate presence of H. Braun, the sum of approximately $210.00 . . . , which said taking was then and there without the consent and against the will of said Braun, and was then and there accomplished by means of force used upon and against the said PI. Braun, and by then and there putting the said H. Braun in fear, ...”

Upon this appeal it is urged by appellants that this information is insufficient in that it does not contain the specific charge that either of these defendants were armed with a deadly weapon. They contend that this is a violation

[517]

of section 969c of the Penal Code, which provides that “Whenever a defendant is armed with a firearm . . . , under such circumstances as to bring said defendant within the operation of subdivision 2 of section 1168 of the Penal Code . . . , the fact that the defendant was so armed shall be charged in the . . . information. . . . This charge shall be added to and be a part of the count of the . . . information . . . which charge the offense. ...” Upon this omission these appellants contend they were found guilty of a crime, i. e., robbery of the first degree, which was not charged in the information. In this they are in error.

People v. Meyers

AI Brief

PULLEN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief