203 Cal. App. 2d 611 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1962
John Joseph Collins and Leroy Gardner were jointly accused of burglary and grand theft consisting of entry of a store building of Norman H. Satehell in Los Angeles and theft of a cash register of the value of $600 and money in the amount of $100. In a jury trial in which they were represented by Deputy Public Defender F. Kilbride, Gardner was acquitted and Collins was convicted of burglary in the second degree and grand theft, and was sentenced for both crimes. Collins was also found to have suffered four prior felony convictions which were alleged in the information ; he appeals from the judgment. He applied for appointment of counsel on the appeal. We read the record, found the judgment to be subject to modification by deleting the sentence for grand theft, and that in other respects the appeal was without any semblance of merit. The application was denied. After due notice, no brief has been filed.
The deputy public defender succeeded in persuading the jury that the gap in the evidence with respect to the identification of Gardner as one of the men in the store was fatal to the case against him and the jury acquitted him. This was merely one of many instances we have observed in which the members of the public defender’s staff have demonstrated their competence and alertness in the representation of indigent prisoners.
We have examined the instructions and find them to be correct and complete with the exception that they permitted the conviction of Collins of two offenses, burglary and grand theft.
The law with respect to the crimes of burglary and grand theft, and other offenses committed contemporaneously, and for the accomplishment of a single purpose has undergone extreme changes of late. (Neal v. State of California, 55 Cal.2d 11 [9 Cal.Rptr. 607, 357 P.2d 839]; People v. Brown, 200 Cal.App.2d 111 [19 Cal.Rptr. 36].) In the latter ease, the
In the present case, the greater of the two offenses is burglary in the second degree for which the maximum term of imprisonment in state prison is 15 years (Pen. Code, § 461), whereas for grand theft the maximum term is 10 years (Pen. Code, §489).
The judgment is modified by striking out that portion thereof directing that defendant be imprisoned for the offense of grand theft and, as modified, is affirmed.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 8, 1962.