Court Opinion

ID: 9722880
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:54:05.962697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:41.436796
License: Public Domain

ASHBY, J.
I reluctantly concur with the result. This is another case in which we are required to exalt form over substance.
Penal Code section 211a1 provides: “All robbery which is perpetrated by torture or by a person being armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon ... is robbery in the first degree. . . .”
In pronouncing judgment the trial court stated, “I find each of the defendants guilty of the offenses charged in Counts I [robbery] and III .... I find that the allegations that each of the defendants used a firearm within the meaning of Penal Code Section 12022.5 to be true.”
Although it seems clear that the trial court unmistakably intended to find appellant guilty of first degree robbery,2 we are required to reduce *286appellant’s conviction to second degree robbery under the compulsion of People v. Beamon, 8 Cal.3d 625 [105 Cal.Rptr. 681, 504 P.2d 905], which considered this issue in footnote 2 on page 629.

Amended subsequent to defendant’s conviction and sentencing, effective July 1,1977.

It should be noted that the trial court on July 13 in an ex parte order amended the June 7 sentencing order by adding the following: “The order of 6-7-77 is amended by *286adding the following: Count 1—-the allegation pursuant to Section 12022.5 PC found true 4^ 1.8-77; the degree is fixed at first.”