People v. Sanders

FORD, J.

By an amended information the defendant Sanders and Jack O’Neal Haekett were charged with the crime of robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) It was alleged that money was taken from Henry F. Zander, who was “a person who was then and there performing his duties as operator of a motor vehicle used for the transportation of persons for hire.”

1

It was further alleged that at the time of the com

[608]

mission of the offense, the defendants “were armed with a deadly weapon, to wit, switch-blade knife.” Each defendant waived his right to trial by jury. The defendant Sanders was convicted of robbery of the first degree. Haekett was acquitted. While the document which has been assumed to be a notice of appeal from the judgment was not skillfully drawn,*

2

no question as to its sufficiency has been raised by the respondent. We treat it as constituting a sufficient compliance with the law. (See

People

v.

Robinson,

43 Cal.2d 143, 145 [271 P.2d 872].)

The principal contention of the defendant Sanders is that the evidence as to his identity as one of the participants in the commission of the crime was insufficient to sustain the conviction. The witness Zander testified that he was a cab driver and that about ten minutes before 6 o’clock on the morning of February 15, 1962, two men entered his cab as passengers and directed him to take them to another part of the City of Compton. He did so. After he alighted from his cab and went around the vehicle and opened the rear door, Sanders placed a knife against his stomach. The exposed blade was about 4 inches long. Upon the demand of Sanders, the cab driver gave him his change. Sanders’ companion took the cab driver’s wallet from his pocket. The wallet contained about $15.

Portions of the cab driver Zander’s testimony under cross-examination were as follows: “Q. Were you too scared, sir, to pay much attention to anything? A. Well, I was pretty scared all right. ... Q. Were you too scared to pay too much attention to anything ? A. Yes. Q. Now, in answer to one of the questions which the District Attorney asked you . . . you referred to the Defendant, Sanders. Did you say, in referring to something he said, ‘It might not be him but it looked like him?’ Was that one of your answers to the District Attorney’s question? A. I believe it was, yes.” The witness could not recall whether the robber that he testified was Sanders had a mustache at the time of the offense.