People v. Bradford

Good Law
104 Cal. Rptr. 852·1972 Cal. App. LEXIS 784·28 Cal. App. 3d 695
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 14, 1972Docket Nos. 9367, 9673California4,417 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kongsgaard, J.

Following a trial by jury defendants Ervin and Bradford were convicted of violating Penal Code sections 21 1 (robbery); 245, subdivision (a) (assault with a deadly weapon); 245, subdivision (b) (assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer); and 12020 (possession of a sawed-off' shotgun). A third co-defendant, Brown, was charged with the same offenses but the jury was unable to reach a verdict on any of the charges against Brown and a new trial was ordered for him.

Prior to trial defendants Bradford and Brown moved to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5. Defendant Ervin did not join in the motion to suppress. After a hearing (he motion to suppress evidence was denied. Defendants" primary attack on appeal is aimed at the denial of the motion to suppress, defendant Bradford contending the court should have granted the motion to suppress while defendant Ervin contends he had inadequate representation because his counsel failed to join in the motion to suppress.

Statement of Facts

On August 1, 1969, shortly after 10 a.m., Edward Avanzino withdrew $29,550 from his bank to-be used for the purpose of cashing payroll checks at his liquor store in San…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.