Franklin Dwight Benton v. Walter E. Craven

Ninth Circuit

Franklin Dwight Benton v. Walter E. Craven

435 F.2d 161, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6207

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 30, 1970

Docket25338_1

StatusPublished

This text of 435 F.2d 161 (Franklin Dwight Benton v. Walter E. Craven) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Franklin Dwight Benton v. Walter E. Craven, 435 F.2d 161, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6207 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Convicted in the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, California, of robbery (Cal.Pen.C. § 211) and assault with a deadly weapon (Cal.Pen.C. § 245), Benton sought federal habeas corpus. He appeals from denial, and we affirm.

He asserts that there was no proof that the crimes occurred in Santa Cruz County and that this failure of proof violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. California law fixes venue as the jurisdiction of the court in which the offense was committed (Cal.Pen.C. § 777), here the Superior Court of the County of Santa Cruz and thus the County of Santa Cruz.

We need not, and expressly do not, decide whether the federal constitutional provisions apply. Here there was proof that the offense occurred at the Pasatiempo Inn Motel. We see no reason why a judge and jury in Santa Cruz County could not take judicial notice that the Inn is in the county, particularly in the case of a small predominantly rural county like Santa Cruz.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Convicted in the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, California, of robbery (Cal.Pen.C. § 211) and assault with a deadly weapon (Cal.Pen.C. § 245), Benton sought federal habeas corpus. He appeals from denial, and we affirm.

He asserts that there was no proof that the crimes occurred in Santa Cruz County and that this failure of proof violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. California law fixes venue as the jurisdiction of the court in which the offense was committed (Cal.Pen.C. § 777), here the Superior Court of the County of Santa Cruz and thus the County of Santa Cruz.

We need not, and expressly do not, decide whether the federal constitutional provisions apply. Here there was proof that the offense occurred at the Pasatiempo Inn Motel. We see no reason why a judge and jury in Santa Cruz County could not take judicial notice that the Inn is in the county, particularly in the case of a small predominantly rural county like Santa Cruz.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

435 F.2d 161, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-dwight-benton-v-walter-e-craven-ca9-1970.