People v. Hickok

[59]

SALSMAN, J.

Appellant and Gerald Lee Aneelet were jointly charged with robbery (Pen. Code, §211). Appellant was also charged with four prior felony convictions. Appellant denied the robbery. He denied three of the prior felonies and admitted one. After jury trial he was found guilty of robbery. The jury also found he had suffered the three prior convictions charged in the information. Appellant was adjudged an habitual criminal within the meaning of Penal Code section 644, subdivision (a), and sentenced to prison.

The robbery charge against appellant stems from the robbery of Jim’s restaurant and bar in Emeryville about midnight December 20, 1962. Three men entered the bar. Two of the men were armed with shotguns. The robbers took the contents of the bar register and also robbed five patrons. A coowner of the bar and three of the patrons identified appellant as one of the robbers.

Appellant first contends that the evidence against him is inherently improbable and insufficient to support the verdict. The rule is that testimony is not inherently improbable unless it appears that what was related was physically impossible or its falsity is apparent without resort to inferences or deductions.

(People

v.

Huston,

21 Cal.2d 690, 693 [134 P.2d 758].) Moreover, a conviction will not be reversed unless it is clear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the verdict.

(People

v.

Newland,

15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [104 P.2d 778].) Here, as we have noted, appellant was identified as one of the robbers by four persons, all of whom were present during the robbery. All of the witnesses who identified appellant had some opportunity to observe him as the robbery progressed. This testimony concerning appellant’s identification and his presence at the scene of the robbery presented a factual question to be decided by the jury.

(People