People v. Fields

California Court of Appeal Jun 9, 1965 No. Crim. 10217Published

Before: Files

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the robbery conviction and that the defendant could not claim prejudice from the disclosure of a prior felony conviction that was elicited by his own counsel during trial.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for robbery.
Whether the defendant was prejudiced by the disclosure of a prior felony conviction to the jury when the disclosure was elicited by his own counsel.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This conflict in the evidence was for the jury to resolve, and its determination on the issue of fact is not a matter to be reargued or reviewed on appeal.”

“The prejudice, if there is any, arose entirely from the voluntary act of the defendant’s own attorney.”

“There would be no end to a criminal proceeding if a defendant was entitled to a new trial because, with hindsight, he regretted some of the evidence he had introduced.”

FILES, P. J.

— Defendant was charged with violating Penal Code section 211 (robbery) in that he forcibly took a wallet and watch valued at $72 from Heinz Paul Wnuk. The information also alleges that on or about March 21, 1959, in Los Angeles County, defendant was convicted of violation of section 288a, Penal Code, a felony.

At the arraignment defendant pleaded not guilty and denied the prior conviction. After the trial had commenced the de

[3]

fendant, out of the presence of the jury, admitted that he had been convicted of the prior alleged in the information.

After the jury had found defendant guilty of robbery in the second degree, the court referred the matter to the probation officer for investigation and report. The probation report showed no prior felony conviction of this defendant. The probation officer did find a record of defendant’s conviction in Los Angeles of violation of Penal Code section 288a, for which offense he was sentenced on May 29, 1957, to six months in the county jail, which sentence was suspended and probation granted for a period of two years upon condition that defendant pay a fine of $150. The effect of this sentence was to reduce that offense to a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 17).

When defendant was arraigned for judgment on the robbery conviction he moved to withdraw his admission of the prior. This motion was granted. The court then found the alleged prior not true, and sentenced defendant to serve a term in the state prison.

A brief statement of the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate its sufficiency to support the verdict.

Heinz Paul Wnuk testified that when he entered a bar about 1:30 in the morning defendant approached him and asked him if he wanted to meet a girl. He and defendant then left the bar and crossed the street, where defendant indicated they would find the girl. As they passed an alley two men came out from behind a building. Defendant struck Wnuk in the face and the other two men joined the attack. Wnuk was dazed and “saw stars.’’ In the struggle someone — he does not know which one — took his wristwatch and his wallet.

Officer Stephens testified that while he was on patrol in a police vehicle he saw the defendant strike Wnuk. Simultaneously two men stepped from behind a building and began hitting the victim. As the police car stopped “somebody hollered ‘ Police ’ ” and the three men started running. Officer Stephens chased two of the men, but was unable to catch either. His partner, Officer B enter, chased and captured defendant.

People v. Fields

AI Brief

FILES, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief