People v. Williams

California Court of Appeal

People v. Williams

56 Cal. App. 3d 253, 128 Cal. Rptr. 408, 1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1345

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 15, 1976

DocketCrim. 8241

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 56 Cal. App. 3d 253 (People v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Williams, 56 Cal. App. 3d 253, 128 Cal. Rptr. 408, 1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1345 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT. *

Robert Verna Williams appeals a judgment, following a trial by the court, convicting him of five counts of first degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The court found Williams used a firearm in the commission of the robberies alleged in counts I, II and III (Pen. Code, § 12022.5).

The victims of the first three robberies were employees of three different 7-11 stores. Each told of the circumstances of the robbery, and each said Williams used a gun which they described. No gun was found, and none was offered as evidence as to the robberies alleged in counts I, II or III. However, in the fourth and fifth robberies, the victims identified a pellet gun (found in Williams’ possession when he was arrested just after the fifth robbery) as resembling the gun used by Williams. Significantly, each of the victims of the first three robberies was shown the pellet gun, and each testified it was not the weapon used by Williams when he robbed them.

*255 Williams contends the evidence does not support the section 12022.5 findings because the People did not prove the weapon used was a firearm, “as distinguished from other deadly weapons or implements merely giving the appearance of deadly weapons . . .” Implicit in the contention is the argument that the People must prove the firearm was operable.

As will be recalled, each victim of the first three robberies charged testified a gun (and not the pellet gun) was used.' Penal Code section 12022.5 imposes no requirement upon the People, either to produce the gun or to prove it was operable (People v. Hayden, 30 Cal.App.3d 446, 452 [106 Cal.Rptr. 348]). 1 The testimony of each victim in describing the gun used in the robberies charged in counts I, II and III is sufficient to sustain the respective findings under section 12022.5.

Judgment affirmed.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied May 14, 1976.

*

Before Brown, P. J., Ault, J. and Cologne, J.

1

Williams’ reliance upon this court’s decision in People v. Torres, 19 Cal.App.3d 724, 733 [97 Cal.Rptr. 139], is misplaced. There, the comments concerning an “operable firearm” were unnecessary to the decision of the case, and not intended to place upon the People the burden of proving the operability of a firearm in order to make a prima facie showing under Penal Code section 12022.5. In our view, People v. Hayden correctly describes the quantum of proof required under Penal Code section 12022.5.

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

Opinion

THE COURT. *

Robert Verna Williams appeals a judgment, following a trial by the court, convicting him of five counts of first degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The court found Williams used a firearm in the commission of the robberies alleged in counts I, II and III (Pen. Code, § 12022.5).

The victims of the first three robberies were employees of three different 7-11 stores. Each told of the circumstances of the robbery, and each said Williams used a gun which they described. No gun was found, and none was offered as evidence as to the robberies alleged in counts I, II or III. However, in the fourth and fifth robberies, the victims identified a pellet gun (found in Williams’ possession when he was arrested just after the fifth robbery) as resembling the gun used by Williams. Significantly, each of the victims of the first three robberies was shown the pellet gun, and each testified it was not the weapon used by Williams when he robbed them.

*255 Williams contends the evidence does not support the section 12022.5 findings because the People did not prove the weapon used was a firearm, “as distinguished from other deadly weapons or implements merely giving the appearance of deadly weapons . . .” Implicit in the contention is the argument that the People must prove the firearm was operable.

As will be recalled, each victim of the first three robberies charged testified a gun (and not the pellet gun) was used.' Penal Code section 12022.5 imposes no requirement upon the People, either to produce the gun or to prove it was operable (People v. Hayden, 30 Cal.App.3d 446, 452 [106 Cal.Rptr. 348]). 1 The testimony of each victim in describing the gun used in the robberies charged in counts I, II and III is sufficient to sustain the respective findings under section 12022.5.

Judgment affirmed.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied May 14, 1976.

*

Before Brown, P. J., Ault, J. and Cologne, J.

1

Williams’ reliance upon this court’s decision in People v. Torres, 19 Cal.App.3d 724, 733 [97 Cal.Rptr. 139], is misplaced. There, the comments concerning an “operable firearm” were unnecessary to the decision of the case, and not intended to place upon the People the burden of proving the operability of a firearm in order to make a prima facie showing under Penal Code section 12022.5. In our view, People v. Hayden correctly describes the quantum of proof required under Penal Code section 12022.5.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 Cal. App. 3d 253, 128 Cal. Rptr. 408, 1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-williams-calctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack