Home/California Supreme Court/In Re Ford

In Re Ford

424 P.2d 681, 66 Cal. 2d 183, 57 Cal. Rptr. 129, 1967 Cal. LEXIS 294
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1967
DocketCrim. 10347
StatusPublished
Cited by31 cases

This text of 424 P.2d 681 (In Re Ford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Ford, 424 P.2d 681, 66 Cal. 2d 183, 57 Cal. Rptr. 129, 1967 Cal. LEXIS 294 (Cal. 1967).

Opinion

THE COURT.

We issued an order to show cause on petitioner’s prima facie showing that the proscription against double punishment (Pen. Code, § 654) was violated by a burglary sentence imposed to run concurrently with sentences for robbery and kidnaping for robbery pronounced at the same time. The judgment imposing the three sentences was affirmed in People v. Ford, 133 Cal.App.2d 695 [284 P.2d 836].

The three offenses were part of one criminal transaction with the single objective of taking a safe from a restaurant. Petitioner was properly sentenced on both the kidnaping count and the robbery count because the People alleged and proved and the jury found that he kidnaped victims A, B, and C for the purpose of robbery (count I) as well as *184 robbing C (count II). The prohibition of section 654 against dual punishment for an act violating more than one statute does not apply when one lawless course of conduct harms more than one victim. (People v. Ridley, 63 Cal.2d 671, 678 [47 Cal.Rptr. 796, 408 P.2d 124] ; Neal v. State of California, 55 Cal.2d 11, 20 [9 Cal.Rptr. 607, 357 P.2d 839].)

The Attorney General concedes that the burglary sentence violated section 654. (In re Wright, 65 Cal.2d 650 [56 Cal.Rptr. 110, 422 P.2d 998].) Records of the Department of Corrections filed in this proceeding by the Attorney General show that in 1963 petitioner was discharged from that sentence and the sentence for robbery. The Adult Authority is directed to exclude the burglary sentence from its consideration. (In re Heedly, 247 Cal.App.2d 854, 856 [56 Cal.Rptr. 67].)

The order to show cause is discharged and the petition for habeas corpus is denied.

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

Related

People v. Thomas CA5
California Court of Appeal, 2023
People v. Carr CA4/1
California Court of Appeal, 2022
People v. Nemwan
238 Cal. App. 4th 103 (California Court of Appeal, 2015)
People v. Hall
100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 279 (California Court of Appeal, 2000)
People v. Centers
86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 151 (California Court of Appeal, 1999)
People v. Masters
195 Cal. App. 3d 1124 (California Court of Appeal, 1987)
People v. See
109 Cal. App. 3d 76 (California Court of Appeal, 1980)
People v. Guevara
88 Cal. App. 3d 86 (California Court of Appeal, 1979)
People v. Miller
558 P.2d 552 (California Supreme Court, 1977)
People v. Johnson
38 Cal. App. 3d 1 (California Court of Appeal, 1974)
People v. Milan
507 P.2d 956 (California Supreme Court, 1973)
People v. Guerin
22 Cal. App. 3d 775 (California Court of Appeal, 1972)
González Zayas v. Superior Court of Puerto Rico
100 P.R. 134 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1971)
González Zayas v. Tribunal Superior de Puerto Rico
100 P.R. Dec. 136 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1971)
People v. Taylor
15 Cal. App. 3d 349 (California Court of Appeal, 1971)
People v. Bauer
461 P.2d 637 (California Supreme Court, 1969)
People v. Ferguson
1 Cal. App. 3d 68 (California Court of Appeal, 1969)
In Re Hayes
70 Cal. 2d 604 (California Supreme Court, 1969)
State Ex Rel. Stangvik v. Tahash
161 N.W.2d 667 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1968)
People v. Churchill
255 Cal. App. 2d 448 (California Court of Appeal, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
424 P.2d 681, 66 Cal. 2d 183, 57 Cal. Rptr. 129, 1967 Cal. LEXIS 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ford-cal-1967.