People v. Norman

California Supreme Court

People v. Norman

482 P.2d 661, 4 Cal. 3d 439, 93 Cal. Rptr. 749, 1971 Cal. LEXIS 330

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 24, 1971

DocketCrim. 14284

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 482 P.2d 661 (People v. Norman) 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. Norman, 482 P.2d 661, 4 Cal. 3d 439, 93 Cal. Rptr. 749, 1971 Cal. LEXIS 330 (Cal. 1971).

Pincite

Opinions

Opinion

THE COURT.

Weldon Walter Norman was found guilty on one count of kidnaping for the purpose of robbery (Pen. Code, § 209), five counts of kidnaping (Pen. Code, § 207), one count of attempted kidnaping (Pen. Code, §§ 207 and 664), six counts of rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. 4), one count of attempted rape (Pen. Code, §§ 261, subd. 4, and 664), and two counts of first degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The judgment was affirmed (People v. Norman (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 59 [1 Cal.Rptr. 699]); we denied a petition for hearing in March 1960, and certiorari was denied in October 1960. In 1969 Norman 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, and we granted a petition for hearing and transferred the application to this court.

In the course of the robbery-rape of which Norman was convicted in count I, he caused his victim to move across the living room and into the bedroom of her house. These movements were merely incidental to the robbery and did not substantially increase the risk of harm beyond that inherent in the robbery itself. (People v. Daniels (1969) supra, 71 Cal.2d 1119,1139.)¹

For the reasons stated in People v. Mutch, ante, p. 389 [93 Cal.Rptr. 721, 482 P.2d 633], Norman 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 count I.

The cause is retransferred to the Court of Appeal for the Second Appel[441]*441late District with directions to recall its remittitur in People v. Norman, Crim. 6674, and to issue a new remittitur vacating the judgment on count I and affirming the judgment in all other respects.

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

Opinion

THE COURT.

Weldon Walter Norman was found guilty on one count of kidnaping for the purpose of robbery (Pen. Code, § 209), five counts of kidnaping (Pen. Code, § 207), one count of attempted kidnaping (Pen. Code, §§ 207 and 664), six counts of rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. 4), one count of attempted rape (Pen. Code, §§ 261, subd. 4, and 664), and two counts of first degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The judgment was affirmed (People v. Norman (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 59 [1 Cal.Rptr. 699]); we denied a petition for hearing in March 1960, and certiorari was denied in October 1960. In 1969 Norman 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, and we granted a petition for hearing and transferred the application to this court.

In the course of the robbery-rape of which Norman was convicted in count I, he caused his victim to move across the living room and into the bedroom of her house. These movements were merely incidental to the robbery and did not substantially increase the risk of harm beyond that inherent in the robbery itself. (People v. Daniels (1969) supra, 71 Cal.2d 1119,1139.)¹

For the reasons stated in People v. Mutch, ante, p. 389 [93 Cal.Rptr. 721, 482 P.2d 633], Norman 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 count I.

The cause is retransferred to the Court of Appeal for the Second Appel[441]*441late District with directions to recall its remittitur in People v. Norman, Crim. 6674, and to issue a new remittitur vacating the judgment on count I and affirming the judgment in all other respects.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

482 P.2d 661, 4 Cal. 3d 439, 93 Cal. Rptr. 749, 1971 Cal. LEXIS 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-norman-cal-1971.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack