Adams v. Heinze

California Court of Appeal Jun 25, 1962 No. Civ. 10518Published

Before: Schottky

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the petitioner's convictions for both kidnaping for the purpose of robbery and robbery constituted double punishment under Penal Code section 654 because the kidnaping was merely incidental to the robbery. Consequently, the robbery conviction must be set aside, though the petitioner remains imprisoned under the valid kidnaping sentence.

Issues

Whether the petitioner's sentences for both kidnaping for the purpose of robbery and robbery violate Penal Code section 654 regarding double punishment.
Whether it was improper for the petitioner to be charged with two crimes when he could only be sentenced for one.

Disposition. Robbery conviction set aside; petition for habeas corpus denied.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.”

“A study of the record convinces us that the kidnaping was a mere incident of the robbery and not separate therefrom.”

“The kidnaping for the purpose of robbery sentence, the more serious of the two offenses for which Adams was sentenced, is the only one for which Adams may be punished.”

SCHOTTKY, J.

Frank Adams, an inmate of Folsom Prison, seeks a writ for the purpose of vacating one of two sentences he is now serving. The petition, though labeled mandate, will be treated as one for habeas corpus which is the proper remedy to review the question whether the court exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing sentence on both counts.

(Neal

State of California,

55 Cal.2d 11 [9 Cal.Rptr. 607, 357 P.2d 839].)

The facts as conceded by the Attorney General disclose: Woodrow Fleming was employed as a janitor at the Mayfair Market. On August 22, 1958, he went to work as usual. At approximately 2:45 a. m., as he was cleaning the store, he heard a voice say, “Come to me, pal.” Looking up, Fleming saw petitioner a short distance away holding a gun in his hand. After a brief hesitation, Fleming approached petitioner as ordered. Petitioner said, “Let’s go upstairs,” and he marched Fleming up the stairs. Arriving at the second-floor landing, petitioner said, “Turn left; go to the office.” At the office door he told Fleming to lie down. Petitioner then unlocked the office door and told Fleming to get up and enter the office. When Fleming entered he was again ordered to lie on the floor.

The office door had automatically closed after they entered. Petitioner went over to Fleming and asked him how to open the door from the inside, and particularly so the alarm would not go off. Fleming told him that he had to press a button. Petitioner then ordered Fleming to go to the door with him so they could try it. Fleming obeyed, and when the door was opened petitioner ordered Fleming back to where he had been lying on the floor. Fleming obeyed this order also.

Petitioner then took a handkerchief out of Fleming’s right back pocket and went toward the office safe. In a few minutes Fleming heard the buzzer go off and petitioner running down the stairs and presumably out of the building. The safe was now open and the money which it had contained was missing.

Petitioner contends that his conviction and sentence for the crime of kidnaping for the purpose of robbery and for robbery constitute double punishment in violation of section 654 of

[55]

Adams v. Heinze

AI Brief

SCHOTTKY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief