In re Wright

Bad Law
1967 Cal. LEXIS 375·56 Cal. Rptr. 110·65 Cal. 2d 650·422 P.2d 998
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 31, 1967Crim. No. 10409California2,751 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Traynor, J.

Petitioners were convicted of kidnaping Linn Bayliss for the purpose of robbery, first degree, robbery of Bayliss,. and first degree robbery of Joseph Brody A The superior court imposed concurrent sentences. Petitioner Wright appealed, and the judgment against him was affirmed.. (People v. Wright (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 866 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 432 ].)

Petitioners seek a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the convictions rest upon evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure incident to an unlawful arrest. The writ is not available to attack a final judgment on this ground. (In re Lessard (1965) 62 Cal.2d 497, 503 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 583 , 399 P.2d 39 ]; In re Sterling (1965) 63 Cal.2d 486, 487 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 205 ,407 P.2d5].)

The opinion on Wright’s appeal ( 216 Cal.App.2d 866 ) reveals, however, that the kidnaping of Bayliss was part of an, indivisible course of conduct directed to the objective of robbing him. The Attorney General concedes that under Penal Code section 654 1 petitioners cannot be punished for both the kidnaping and the robbery of Bayliss (In re Ward (1966) 64 Cal.2d 672, 677 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 272 , 414 P.2d 400 ]; In re Ponce (1966) ante, pp. 341, 342-343 [ 54…

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.