Sanford

People v. Sanford

Good Law
134 Cal. Rptr. 155·1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 2143·63 Cal. App. 3d 952
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 18, 1976Crim. No. 14235; Crim. No. 14195California2,808 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Emerson, J.

*956 Opinion

Lonnie DeCarlo Sanford and Nicolas Sosa (hereafter appellants) appeal from judgments convicting them of four counts of kidnaping for the purpose of robbery (Pen. Code, § 209) 1 and one count of robbery in the first degree (§ 211). Appellants were also found to have been armed and to have used a firearm during the commission of the offenses. (§§ 12022, 12022.5.) Their motions for a new trial on the kidnaping charges were denied.

Since appellants’ contentions relate principally to questions of law, we shall not set forth the evidence in detail. It will be apparent from our discussion that “the Ayalas” and “the Egrmayers” were the victims of the kidnapings and the robbery.

Throughout their trial appellants were shackled with leg irons. Their motion to have the shackles removed was denied by the trial court.

In People v. Duran (1976) 16 Cal.3d 282 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 618 , 545 P.2d 1322 ], the Supreme Court held that a defendant cannot be subjected to physical restraints of any kind in the courtroom while in the jury’s presence unless there is a showing of “manifest need for such restraints.” It was further stated that “[t]he showing of nonconforming behavior in support…

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.