Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/20/142.html
Timestamp: 2019-10-15 10:55:52
Document Index: 681081125

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 111', '§ 245', '§ 211', '§ 10851', '§ 484', '§ 10851', '§ 656', '§ 793']

People v. Comingore :: :: Supreme Court of California Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: US Law :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › California Case Law › Cal. 3d › Volume 20 › People v. Comingore
(Opinion by Clark, J., expressing the unanimous view of the court.) [20 Cal. 3d 143]
Wilbur F. Littlefield, Public Defender, Harold E. Shabo, Laurance S. Smith and Dennis A. Fischer, Deputy Public Defenders, for Defendant and Respondent. [20 Cal. 3d 144]
We conclude that the Oregon conviction does bar the California charges, and that the trial court therefore acted properly in dismissing the information. [20 Cal. 3d 145]
As principles declared therein control this case our recent decision in People v. Belcher (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 91 [113 Cal. Rptr. 1, 520 P.2d 385] will be reviewed in some detail. In a narcotics "rip off," the defendant in Belcher robbed two undercover officers, one of them a federal agent, at gun point. Having previously been acquitted in federal court of assault with a deadly weapon upon a federal agent (18 U.S.C. § 111), the defendant was convicted in state court, on the basis of the same incident, of assault with a deadly weapon and by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)) and of two counts of first degree robbery (§ 211a). His principal contention on appeal was that he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel because of trial counsel's failure to properly assert the defense of former acquittal. When a "crucial defense" is withdrawn because of counsel's lack of diligence or competence the trial is reduced to a "farce or sham," requiring reversal of the resultant conviction. (People v. Camden (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 808, 815 [129 Cal. Rptr. 438, 548 P.2d 1110]; People v. Stephenson (1974) 10 Cal. 3d 652, 661 [111 Cal. Rptr. 556, 517 P.2d 820]; People v. Ibarra (1963) 60 Cal. 2d 460 [34 Cal. Rptr. 863, 386 P.2d 487].) The defense of former acquittal is a "crucial defense." Trial counsel did fail to adequately present it. Therefore, the question presented in Belcher was whether the defendant was entitled to the defense of former acquittal.
We noted at the outset that prosecution and conviction for the same act by both state and federal governments are not barred by the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy. (Abbate v. United States (1959) 359 U.S. 187, 194-195 [3 L. Ed. 2d 729, 733-735, 79 S. Ct. 666]; Bartkus v. Illinois (1959) 359 U.S. 121, 136 [3 L. Ed. 2d 684, 694, 79 S. Ct. 676]; United States v. Lanza (1922) 260 U.S. 377, 382 [67 L. Ed. 314, 317, 43 S. Ct. 141].) This rule, however, does not preclude a state from providing greater double jeopardy protection than is provided by the federal Constitution under decisions of the United States Supreme Court. (Bunnell v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 592, 601 [119 Cal. Rptr. 302, 531 P.2d 1086]; Curry v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 707, 716 [87 Cal. Rptr. 361, 470 P.2d 345].)
The applicable California statute, we held, was section 656, which provides: "Whenever on the trial of an accused person it appears that upon a criminal prosecution under the laws of another State, Government, or countrI, founded upon the act or omission in respect to which [20 Cal. 3d 146] he is on trial, he has been acquitted or convicted, it is a sufficient defense." (Italics added.)
"Under this section," we held, "a defendant may not be convicted after a prior acquittal or conviction in another jurisdiction if all the acts constituting the offense in this state were necessary to prove the offense in the prior prosecution (People v. Candelaria [1956] 139 Cal. App. 2d 432, 440 [294 P.2d 120]); however, a conviction in this state is not barred where the offense committed is not the same act but involves an element not present in the prior prosecution. (People v. Candelaria [1957] 153 Cal. App. 2d 879, 884 [315 P.2d 386].)" (People v. Belcher, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 99, italics added.)
[1a] The People's position in the present case rests upon misunderstanding of the italicized portion of the foregoing quotation. The People concede that the charges pending against defendant in California are based upon the same physical conduct as the offense to which he pleaded guilty in Oregon. They contend, however, that the California charges are not based upon the same act as the Oregon conviction because the pending charges require an element -- the intent to deprive the owner of his vehicle temporarily (Veh. Code, § 10851) or permanently (§ 484; Veh. Code, § 10851) -- assertedly not required for the prior conviction. We rejected a similar argument in Belcher, as did the Court of Appeal in People v. Candelaria (1956) 139 Cal. App. 2d 432 [294 P.2d 120], the first case to interpret section 656.
In Candelaria, the defendant asserted that under section 656 his prior conviction in federal court of robbery of a national bank was a bar to his [20 Cal. 3d 147] subsequent state conviction for the same robbery. The Court of Appeal agreed. "The only additional element involved in the federal prosecution was that the money belonged to a national bank whose deposits were federally insured. That additional element, regarding the status of title to or insurance on the money, pertained to the matter of jurisdiction of the federal court, and it did not pertain to any activity on the part of defendant in committing the robbery. The physical act or conduct of defendant in taking the money was the same whether the robbery be considered as a federal offense or a state offense. All the acts constituting the state offense were included in the federal offense and were necessary to constitute the federal offense. It is clear that, within the meaning of said section 656, the federal conviction was 'founded upon the act' in respect to which the defendant was tried in the present case. It appears, as a matter of law, that the previous federal conviction is a sufficient defense in the present case." (139 Cal.App.2d at p. 440, italics added.)
[2] A statute should be interpreted with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part. (People v. Ruster (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 690, 696 [129 Cal. Rptr. 153, 548 P.2d 353]; Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal. 2d 640, 645 [335 P.2d 672].) Sections 20 and 656 date [20 Cal. 3d 148] from the 1872 enactment of the Penal Code and should be interpreted together. Section 20 provides that "In every crime or public offense there must exist a union, or joint operation of act and intent, or criminal negligence." Intent, then, is an element of a crime or a public offense, not of an act.
Under this analysis, section 793 is applicable here as defendant seeks to bar the institution of a criminal prosecution. The parties expressly agree on this point. However, as the author of the note remarked, "there appears to be no legal significance in the different wording of § 656 and § 793." (45 Cal.L.Rev., at p. 197, fn. 7.) Sections 656 and 793, as well as Vehicle Code section 41400, fn. 4 use similar terms and the parties have not suggested, nor are we able to discover, any reason to believe that one of the statutes was intended to provide greater protection than the other two. [1b] Therefore, although we hold that section 793 rather than section 656 governs this case, it does not alter our conclusion that, being based on the same acts as the pending California charges, defendant's former conviction in Oregon for unauthorized use of a vehicle bars [20 Cal. 3d 149] prosecuting him in this state for grand theft auto and unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle.
FN 1. Subdivision 3 provides that grand theft is committed "[w]hen the property taken is an automobile, ..."
FN 2. Section 10851 provides in relevant part: "Any person who drives or takes a vehicle not his own, without the consent of the owner thereof, and with intent either permanently or temporarily to deprive the owner thereof of his title to or possession of the vehicle, whether with or without intent to steal the same ... is guilty of a public offense ...."
FN 3. Oregon Revised Statutes 164.135 provides in relevant part: "(1) A person commits the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle when: (a) He takes, operates, exercises control over, rides in or otherwise uses another's vehicle ... without consent of the owner ...."
FN 4. Section 41400 provides: "Whenever any person is charged with a violation of this code, it is a sufficient defense to such charge if it appears that in a criminal prosecution in another state or by the Federal Government, founded upon the act or omission in respect to which he is on trial, he has been convicted or acquitted." (Italics added.)