Court Opinion

ID: 9607309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:57:32.257713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:38.340095
License: Public Domain

FOURT, J.
I concur. In this case each of the defendants was charged with a prior conviction of armed robbery. The certified copies of the former prison records were in proper order, and were received in evidence. Each defendant ad*322mitted to the prior charge and conviction on cross-examination. It is interesting to note that the defendants and appellants in this case committed the previous first degree armed robberies mentioned in the information as the priors, on August 25, 1954, in almost the identical fashion (robbing a service station around 4 a. m.—asking permission to use the restroom—each pulled a gun and forced the attendant to open the cash box, taking the money—taking the attendant away from the station to empty lot) as they committed the armed robbery with Avhich we are concerned in this ease. For the prior convictions, Hornes entered prison on February 28, 1955, and was released on parole August 28, 1957; McCollin entered prison on March 29, 1955, and was released on parole September 30, 1957. The two defendants, obviously, immediately got together after their release from prison and within less than 60 days were back at the business of armed robbery.
The. court was fully informed of the background of each of the defendants, for the judge said at the time of sentence:
“The Court: Yes, I have also checked my notes, and the preliminary transcript shows that these gentlemen were convicted in 1954—Hornes in 1954 for robbery, and McCollin in 1955 for robbery. They served a term of imprisonment for those offenses, and it seems to me that they, more than anybody else, ought to know the seriousness of the conditions of their parole. Apparently they took it too lightly. I like to give a man a chance, but they just repeatedly become involved in offenses of this kind, and I don’t see that there is anything we can do for them. I wish I had a pill I could give them to straighten them out, but I haven’t.”
The court then made no findings as to the prior convictions, as required by Penal Code, section 1158, and sentenced each of the defendants as a first offender. As said in People v. Fields, 167 Cal.App.2d 773 (filed February 10, 1959), at page 778 [334 P.2d 1001] : “. . . the defendant in this ease is now, by reason of the judge’s failure to find as to the prior convictions . . . permitted to serve a sentence which can be considerably less than that required and set forth in the statutes. ’ ’