Title: P. v. Bacon

State: california

Issuer: California Supreme Court

Document:

Filed 12/15/10 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
THE PEOPLE, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
) 
S079179 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
ROBERT ALLEN BACON, 
) 
 
 
) 
Solano County 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
) 
Super. Ct. No. F-C42606 
 
____________________________________) 
 
 
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION 
 
THE COURT: 
 
The opinion filed on October 21, 2010, and published at 50 Cal.4th 1082, is 
modified as follows: 
 
At page 1118, delete the full paragraph at the bottom of the page and 
substitute the following: 
 
Defendant objects to our concluding that his Arizona prior murder would 
be felony murder under California law because, he contends, the description of his 
crimes at his plea hearing shows the robbery was incidental to or an afterthought 
to the homicide.  (See, e.g., People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1259 [For 
purposes of the felony-murder rule, the homicide “ „need not occur in the midst of 
the commission of the felony, so long as that felony is not merely incidental to, or 
an afterthought to, the killing.‟ ”].)  The record does not support defendant‟s 
objection.  Rather, as the transcript of the hearing at which defendant entered his 
guilty plea establishes and defendant‟s own briefing concedes:  (1) defendant 
decided to take Noble‟s wallet while Noble was sleeping; (2) Noble woke up and a 
fight ensued; (3) Noble was killed in the fight or died shortly thereafter as a result 
of it; and (4) defendant acquired Noble‟s wallet, later producing it for the police 
after his arrest.  On these facts, the robbery of Noble was not “ „merely incidental 
to, or an afterthought to, [his] killing.‟ ”  (Ibid.) 
 
This modification does not affect the judgment.