People v. Williams

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County convicting him upon a jury verdict of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187.) The jury returned the death penalty. As a result, this appeal is automatic. (Pen. Code, § 1239, subd. (b).)

On April 22, 1965, we reversed a similar judgment against defendant and his then codefendant because a confession was admitted into evidence without compliance with Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 977 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 ], as followed by this court in People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338 [ 42 Cal. Rptr. 169 , 398 P.2d 361 ]. ( People v. Lilliock, 62 Cal.2d 618 [ 43 Cal. Rptr. 699 , 401 P.2d 4 ].)

The remittitur issued on June 22, 1965. The matter was not calendared until September 24, 1965. On October 18 Williams moved under Penal Code section 1382 to dismiss the action since it was not brought within the 60 days fixed by statute. The motion was granted. A new information was filed and Williams was immediately rearrested under it. Defendant's subsequent motion to set aside this information under Penal Code, section 995, was denied.

Williams, and his codefendant Lilliock, were charged with murder.…

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County convicting him upon a jury verdict of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187.) The jury returned the death penalty. As a result, this appeal is automatic. (Pen. Code, § 1239, subd. (b).)

On April 22, 1965, we reversed a similar judgment against defendant and his then codefendant because a. confession was admitted into evidence without compliance with Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 977 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 ], as followed by this court in People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 169 , 398 P.2d 361 ], (People v. Lilliock, 62 Cal.2d 618 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 699 , 401 P.2d 4 ].)

The remittitur issued on June 22, 1965. The matter was not calendared until September 24, 1965. On October 18 “Williams' moved under Penal Code section 1382 to dismiss the action since it was not brought within the 60 days fixed by statute. The motion was granted. A new information was filed and Williams was immediately rearrested under it. Defendant’s subsequent motion to set aside this information under Penal Code, section 995, was denied.

Williams, and his eodefendant Lillioek, were charged with murder. (Pen. Code, §…

Finding no error under Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 776 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 ], I dissent from the reversal as to penalty. In all other respects I concur.

The petitions of the appellant and the respondent for a rehearing were denied September 17, 1969. Peek, J., * sat in place of Mosk, J., who deemed himself disqualified. McComb, J., Burke, J., and Sullivan, J., were of the opinion that the respondent’s petition should be granted.