Legal Opinion

In Re Ford

California Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 1967No. Crim. 10347PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

We issued an order to show cause on petitioner’s prima facie showing that the proscription against double punishment (Pen. Code, § 654) was violated by a burglary sentence imposed to run concurrently with sentences for robbery and kidnaping for robbery pronounced at the same time. The judgment imposing the three sentences was affirmed in People v. Ford, 133 Cal.App.2d 695 [284 P.2d 836].

The three offenses were part of one criminal transaction with the single objective of taking a safe from a restaurant. Petitioner was properly sentenced on both the kidnaping count and the robbery…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Neal v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  2. In re WrightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  3. People v. RidleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  4. People v. FordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  5. In re HeedlyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. People v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  2. People v. BauerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  3. People v. MilanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  4. People v. BauerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  5. In re HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API