Bickley

I concur in affirming the judgment finding defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, but I would also affirm the judgment imposing the death penalty. (See People v. Imbler, ante, pp. 711, 718 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 568 , 371 P.2d 304 ] ; People v. Garner, ante, pp. 135, 156 [23] [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 40 , 367 P.2d 680 ] ; People v. Lane, 56 Cal.2d 773, 787 [16] [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 801 , 366 P.2d 57 ] ; and see dissents of Mr. Justice Schauer and myself in People v. Kidd, 56 Cal.2d 759, 771 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 793 , 366 P.2d 49 ] ; People v. Love, 56 Cal.2d 720, 734, 739, 748 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 777 , 17 Cal.Rptr. 481 , 366 P.2d 33, 809 ] ; People v. Howk, 56 Cal.2d 687, 707 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 370 , 365 P.2d 426 ] ; People v. Purvis, 56 Cal.2d 93, 99 [ 13 Cal.Rptr. 801 , 362 P.2d 713 ].)

Schauer, J., concurred.

J. — David Charles Bickley and John Larue Young were jointly charged with murder, and, with other defendants, were also charged with the commission of various robberies. Bickley, the only defendant involved on this appeal, pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity to all charges. Pursuant to the provisions of section 1027 of the Penal Code, two alienists were appointed to examine him. They reported Bickley to be sane. Bickley then withdrew his insanity plea, and pleaded guilty to the five robbery counts. On the trial of the murder count, on the issue of guilt, the jury found both Young and Bickley guilty of murder in the first degree. On the penalty phase of the trial the same jury fixed the penalty for Young as life imprisonment, and for Bickley, fixed the penalty as .death. This automatic appeal of Bickley is before us under the provisions of section 1239, subdivision (b), of the Penal Code.

No challenge is or can be made of the determination of guilt. Neither defendant offered any evidence on this issue, and both fully confessed upon their arrest. The record discloses no errors of any serious nature on the trial of this issue.

The facts produced by the…