People v. Porter

California Court of Appeal Aug 14, 1987 No. B021673Published

Before: Ashby

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant could be punished for both robbery and kidnapping for the purpose of robbery because the crimes involved independent criminal objectives, and that the trial court's failure to state reasons for imposing upper terms was harmless error.

Issues

Whether Penal Code section 654 bars multiple punishment for robbery and kidnapping for the purpose of robbery under the circumstances of this case.
Whether the trial court erred by failing to state its reasons on the record for imposing upper terms for robbery and receiving stolen property.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The record in this case supports the trial court’s implied finding that the two crimes for which appellant was sentenced involved multiple objectives, were not merely incidental to each other, and were not part of an indivisible course of conduct.”

“In the unusual circumstances of this case, appellant could be punished both for the robbery he committed and the kidnapping for the purpose of a distinctly different type of robbery.”

“However, in this case the error was harmless and it would be idle to remand to the trial court for a new statement of reasons, as it is not reasonably probable that a result more favorable to appellant would occur.”

Opinion

ASHBY, J.

By nonjury trial appellant was found guilty of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), kidnapping for the purpose of robbery (Pen. Code, § 209), and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496). He was sentenced to state prison for life pursuant to Penal Code section 209 and to concurrent upper terms for robbery and receiving stolen property.

Counts I and II

(Kidnapping for the purpose of robbery, robbery)

At about 8:45 p.m. on August 19, 1984, the victim, Mr. Eugene DePiano, was parked in the area of Sunset Boulevard and Western Avenue in Los Angeles. He had returned some rented video cassette tapes to a store and was reentering his car when he observed appellant and another man approaching very rapidly. Mr. DePiano jumped in his car, locked his front door and rolled up the window, but appellant opened the back door, jumped in the back seat, and held a knife to Mr. DePiano’s throat. Appellant reached over and unlocked the front passenger door, and appellant’s companion got in the front seat. Appellant’s companion began going through the victim’s wallet which was on the front seat. Appellant directed Mr. DePiano to drive to a dark side street, about 200 yards away, and to stop.

After rummaging through Mr. DePiano’s wallet and finding only $7 or $8, appellant and his companion insisted the victim must have more money than that. Examining the victim’s credit cards, appellant and his companion found one which they believed was a bank automated teller card. Appellant asked Mr. DePiano where his bank was located, and was told Sunset and Vermont. Appellant told Mr. DePiano “We were going to drive—to drive over there so he could make me use my card to get him some money and I better hope that I had some money in the bank.”

[37]

With appellant holding the knife to his neck the entire time, Mr. DePiano drove to Sunset and Vermont where he made a U-tum and parked directly in front of the bank ready teller. They had to wait, because several people were in line using the automatic teller. Although Mr. DePiano tried to explain that the card was an ordinary credit card, not an automated teller card, appellant told him “they were going to make me remember how to use this card.”

People v. Porter

AI Brief

ASHBY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief