Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/38/401.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:47:55+00:00

Document:
Richard H. Levin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Larry Smith was charged with armed robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) A jury found him guilty of first degree robbery and also found that he was armed when the offense was committed. The court found a prior felony allegation to be true. Defendant was sentenced to prison; he was also sentenced to additional punishment under Penal Code section 12022.5, or "alternatively," to the minimum punishment provided under section 3024.
Since defendant's contentions are directed to procedural matters, our statement of the facts of the crime will be short.
Defendant and a codefendant, Larry Holloway, who was tried separately, [38 Cal. App. 3d 404] were charged with robbing one Joseph Dana in August 1972. Defendant pointed a single-barrelled shotgun at Dana, demanded money, and also took Dana's wallet and wristwatch. At the trial, Dana and an eyewitness, Lannie Julias, identified defendant as one of the robbers. Julias had noted the license number on the robbers' automobile. Defendant and Holloway were later arrested riding in a vehicle with the plates noted by the witness. Defendant was a passenger. Besides money, a loaded shotgun and extra shells were found in the car. Defendant was observed wearing a watch like the victim's; this watch was next seen under the back seat of the police car in which defendant was transported, and was identified by the victim as his.
The defense was an alibi. Four witnesses and defendant testified, in substance, that he was somewhere else when the robbery occurred.
Before trial, defendant personally made motions to represent himself, to have private counsel instead of the public defender appointed, and to be granted propria persona status to assist his attorney. All these motions were denied.
Defendant admitted having been convicted of a felony, murder, in August 1968. The trial proceeded. On the second day of jury deliberations the court reread certain instructions and gave the jury an elaborated version of the Allen charge, which we discuss in detail below. Later that day, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty.
Additional facts will be added in the discussion.
Defendant contends: 1) The trial court coerced the jury to reach a verdict. 2) The trial court erred in refusing to appoint another attorney. 3) There was no evidence that the weapon used in the robbery was operable. 4) He was improperly sentenced under Penal Code section 3024.
The jury started deliberations on January 31, 1973, at 10:15 a.m. and was excused at 4:15 p.m. The next day the jury deliberated from 9 a.m. until 11 a.m. The court then asked the jury for the numerical division on the last ballot. It was told "six to six."
The court then reread several instructions, and read the Allen instruction, [38 Cal. App. 3d 405] set forth in the margin. fn. 1 The court also pointed out that if the jury did not reach "a decision in this case, in all likelihood the case will be retried." The court reminded the jury "that it costs the taxpayers ... $3,000 per day to operate a superior court ... , not that the factor of money should have any effect upon your individual decisions, but just the seriousness of the case and the importance of following the Court's instructions as to the law and deliberating in good faith ...."
The court told the jury that if "you have not reached a decision by tomorrow at 12 o'clock, then, of course, I will have to declare this matter a hung jury and we will then have to reset the matter for trial. With the hope that you will be able to reach a verdict, but without any directions from me that you reach a verdict because I do not want you individually to compromise your own personal opinions -- I can only comment in this case that, certainly, I do not think this is a complicated case. The testimony [38 Cal. App. 3d 406] is not terribly complicated, and, frankly, I do not see any reason why, after careful and due deliberation, you could not reach a decision in this case one way or the other, either guilty or innocent."
Defendant finds issue with nearly every statement made by the court. Defendant also asserts that the Allen instruction "should never again be read in a California courtroom." Assuming we are unwilling to perform such radical surgery, he contends: 1) the instruction was confusing, because the jury was equally divided, and the essence of the Allen instruction is that the minority reconsider its views in light of the majority's views. (Supra, fn. 2.) 2) The court coerced the jury into reaching a verdict by setting a deadline for reaching a verdict or declaring a mistrial, by stating that the case was "not complicated" and that the jury should be able to reach a verdict, by commenting on the costs of running a courtroom and by declaring that the case would probably be retried.
 Defendant first contends that the court coerced a verdict by setting a deadline to reach a verdict or be discharged. We disagree. Defendant, noting that the issue has not been decided in California, relies, by analogy, on the impermissible threat to lock up the jury for the night. (People v. Carter, supra, 68 Cal. 2d 810, 813-814, fn. 1; People v. Savage, 128 Cal. App. 2d 123, 126 [274 P.2d 905]; People v. Crowley, supra, 101 Cal. App. 2d 71, 79.) The analogy fails for obvious reasons: as defendant points out, being locked up for the night is reasonably perceived as punishment. We fail to see how the court's statement that the jury would be discharged -- set free -- could be viewed as punishment, and therefore as coercive.
 Defendant contends that the court's statement of its intention to declare a mistrial was coercive because the court had no authority to do so without questioning the jurors individually. Apart from the legal premise being incorrect fn. 4 (Paulson v. Superior Court, 58 Cal. 2d 1, 7, 8 [22 Cal. Rptr. 649, 372 P.2d 641]; Clemensen v. Municipal Court, 18 Cal. App. 3d 492, 501-502 [96 Cal. Rptr. 126]; People v. Smith, 13 Cal. App. 3d 897, 910-911 [91 Cal. Rptr. 786, 52 A.L.R.3d 875]); we fail to see how a ruling that may lead to a later double jeopardy plea is coercive in effect on the present jury.
Defendant's complaint that the court should not have commented on the costs of a retrial is without merit; the comment is proper. (People v. Burton, supra, 55 Cal. 2d 328, 356-357; People v. Miles, 143 Cal. 636, 639 [77 P. 666].) His contention that the court erred in stating that the matter would probably be retried if the jury deadlocked, because, he says, [38 Cal. App. 3d 409] the "majority of cases" are disposed of by dismissal or plea bargain is equally meritless. The comment was approved in People v. Burton, supra, 55 Cal. 2d 328, 357.
In conclusion, the trial court's comments, taken singly or collectively, were not coercive. They amounted to no more than a strong suggestion to the jurors to do their job, and the likelihood that this equally divided jury would sacrifice its independent judgment was no greater or less than that a jury, freshly charged after hearing the evidence, would decide to reach a chance verdict. Something more than the possibility of irresponsibility is required to find jury coercion.
 Without exactly claiming that he was deprived of effective counsel, defendant contends that the trial court committed "prejudicial error" in refusing to investigate his complaints about his attorney and to appoint private counsel. The contention is without merit.
Defendant's motion to represent himself was denied. He then complained that the public defender's office was "overloaded" and that there was "very little relationship between the two of us." The public defender explained that his office had not represented defendant at the preliminary hearing and that he had not begun to prepare the case pending the court's ruling on defendant's pro per motion. Defendant's alternative request that the court appoint private counsel was denied, and the matter was set for trial. On the trial date, defense counsel asked for a two-week continuance because he was having trouble locating witnesses needed for the defense. The continuance was granted. Defendant then requested that he be granted pro. per. status in order to use the jail law library and assist his attorney. The court denied the request.
Defendant contends as follows: "In as much as the trial court, being aware of appellant's difficulties in obtaining witnesses, denied motions for pro. per. representation and substitution of counsel and failed to investigate appellant's complaints regarding the public defender, judgment must be reversed." Defendant's precise complaint is not clear. In his pro. per. motion for a new trial, he claimed that witnesses who could give "material" testimony were not called. In fact, four alibi witnesses testified in his defense. Nothing in the record indicates that there were other witnesses who could give "material" testimony.
In any event, "the choice of which, and how many, of potential witnesses [to call] is precisely the type of choice which should not be subject to review by an appellate court." (People v. Floyd, 1 Cal. 3d 694, 709 [83 [38 Cal. App. 3d 410] Cal.Rptr. 608, 464 P.2d 64].) Boiled down, defendant is merely complaining that he should not have been represented by the public defender. Just as the defendant in People v. Williams, 2 Cal. 3d 894, 904-905 [88 Cal. Rptr. 208, 471 P.2d 1008], this defendant was given sufficient opportunity to express his complaints; he came up with nothing to justify the appointment of private counsel.
 The court imposed additional punishment prescribed by Penal Code section 12022.5, fn. 5 because defendant used a firearm in committing the robbery. Defendant contends the punishment should be struck.
Defendant admits the jury was instructed that the People must prove the operability of the weapon -- an instruction to which he may not have been entitled fn. 6 -- but contends that the evidence must be direct, not circumstantial. He cites People v. Aranda, 63 Cal. 2d 518, 532 [47 Cal. Rptr. 353, 407 P.2d 265], which imposes no such requirement.
The circumstantial evidence that the weapon was operable was more than sufficient: Defendant was armed with a shotgun during the robbery. When he was arrested, a loaded shotgun and additional shotgun shells were found in the vehicle in which he was riding. A jury could easily infer that defendant would not have carried a loaded shotgun with additional shells, if the weapon were inoperable.
Yurko applies to admissions of priors occurring after March 7, 1974. In any event, the section 3024 punishment was imposed as an "alternative" to the section 12022.5 punishment. Since we have held that the section 12022.5 punishment was properly imposed, the part of the judgment relating to section 3024 must be struck.
The "alternative" imposition of punishment under section 3024, subdivision (c), is struck as surplusage. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
Stephens, J., and Hastings, J., concurred.
FN 1. The Allen instruction was originally approved in Allen v. United States (1896) 164 U.S. 492 [41 L. Ed. 528, 17 S. Ct. 154]. The court read the instruction as given in People v. Ortega, 2 Cal. App. 3d 884, 896, footnote 3 [83 Cal. Rptr. 260].
FN 2. The Allen charge would be most effective and least dangerous in this very situation -- where the deliberations have been lengthy but majority and minority blocs have not formed.
FN 3. A deadline of one year would be patently noncoercive; an hour or two tends to be coercive.
FN 5. Penal Code section 12022.5 provides in part: "Any person who uses a firearm in the commission ... of a robbery, ... upon conviction of such crime, shall, in addition to the punishment prescribed for the crime of which he has been convicted, be punished by imprisonment ... for ... not less than five years."
FN 6. People v. Hayden, 30 Cal. App. 3d 446, 452 [106 Cal. Rptr. 348], held that section 12022.5 does not require proof that the weapon was operable, and distinguished People v. Torres, 19 Cal. App. 3d 724 [97 Cal. Rptr. 139]. The jury, however, was instructed that the "prosecution does bear the burden of proving ... that the firearm used was operable." Defendant of course benefitted from the instruction, but attempts to double the benefit in arguing, first, that the People did not prove the weapon was operable, and, second, that if they were not required to so prove, defendant was prejudiced because he sacrificed an opportunity to prove that the gun was inoperable.

References: § 211
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.