People v. Adame

California Supreme Court

People v. Adame

482 P.2d 652, 4 Cal. 3d 417, 93 Cal. Rptr. 740, 1971 Cal. LEXIS 323

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 24, 1971

DocketCrim. 14235

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 482 P.2d 652 (People v. Adame) 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

People v. Adame, 482 P.2d 652, 4 Cal. 3d 417, 93 Cal. Rptr. 740, 1971 Cal. LEXIS 323 (Cal. 1971).

Pincite

Opinions

Opinion

MOSK, J.

Eduardo Adame and William Lee (who is not a party to the instant matter) were found guilty by a jury on two counts of kidnaping for the purpose of robbery (Pen. Code, § 209) and two counts of first degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The judgment was affirmed in an unpublished opinion in 1967, and we denied a petition for hearing in 1968. In November 1969 Adame filed an application with the Court of Appeal for recall of the remittitur, presenting the sole contention that his case should be reconsidered in the light of People v. Daniels (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1119 [80 Cal.Rptr. 897, 459 P.2d 225]. The Court of Appeal denied the application “without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek appropriate extraordinary relief.” We granted a petition for hearing and transferred the application to this court.

In the course of robbing a supermarket, Adame and his companion caused two employees to move from the checkstand and the manager’s office to the safe. These movements were merely incidental to the robberies and did not substantially increase the risk of harm beyond that inherent in the robberies themselves. (People v. Daniels (1969) supra, 71 Cal.2d 1119, 1139.)

For the reasons stated in People v. Mutch, ante, p. 389 [93 Cal.Rptr. 721, 482 P.2d 633], Adame was therefore convicted of kidnaping to commit robbery under a statute which did not prohibit his acts at the time he committed them, and is entitled to a recall of the remittitur in his appeal and an order vacating the judgment on the kidnaping counts.

The cause is retransferred to the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District with directions to recall its remittitur in People v. Lee & Adame, Crim. 2792, and to issue a new remittitur vacating the judgment [419]*419as to defendant Adame on counts I and II and affirming the judgment on counts III and IV.

Tobriner, Acting C. J., Peters, J., and Kaus, J.,

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

Opinion

MOSK, J.

Eduardo Adame and William Lee (who is not a party to the instant matter) were found guilty by a jury on two counts of kidnaping for the purpose of robbery (Pen. Code, § 209) and two counts of first degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The judgment was affirmed in an unpublished opinion in 1967, and we denied a petition for hearing in 1968. In November 1969 Adame filed an application with the Court of Appeal for recall of the remittitur, presenting the sole contention that his case should be reconsidered in the light of People v. Daniels (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1119 [80 Cal.Rptr. 897, 459 P.2d 225]. The Court of Appeal denied the application “without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek appropriate extraordinary relief.” We granted a petition for hearing and transferred the application to this court.

In the course of robbing a supermarket, Adame and his companion caused two employees to move from the checkstand and the manager’s office to the safe. These movements were merely incidental to the robberies and did not substantially increase the risk of harm beyond that inherent in the robberies themselves. (People v. Daniels (1969) supra, 71 Cal.2d 1119, 1139.)

For the reasons stated in People v. Mutch, ante, p. 389 [93 Cal.Rptr. 721, 482 P.2d 633], Adame was therefore convicted of kidnaping to commit robbery under a statute which did not prohibit his acts at the time he committed them, and is entitled to a recall of the remittitur in his appeal and an order vacating the judgment on the kidnaping counts.

The cause is retransferred to the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District with directions to recall its remittitur in People v. Lee & Adame, Crim. 2792, and to issue a new remittitur vacating the judgment [419]*419as to defendant Adame on counts I and II and affirming the judgment on counts III and IV.

Tobriner, Acting C. J., Peters, J., and Kaus, J.,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

482 P.2d 652, 4 Cal. 3d 417, 93 Cal. Rptr. 740, 1971 Cal. LEXIS 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-adame-cal-1971.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack