People v. Martin9/14/1982
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE
Crim. No. 38923
1982.CA.40333 ; 185 Cal. Rptr. 556; 135 Cal. App. 3d 710
September 14, 1982
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
WILLIAM MARTIN ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. A346780, Gordon Ringer, Judge.
H. Anthony Miller, Lee Belgum, Belgum & Belgum, Richard A. Walton and G. Merle Bergman for Defendants and Appellants.
George Deukmejian, Attorney General, Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Assistant Attorney General, S. Clark Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Shunji Asari and Gelacio L. Bayani, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Opinion by Hastings, J., with Feinerman, P. J., and Ashby, J., concurring.
Hastings
Appellant William Martin was a judge in the Citrus Municipal Court, a position he held for 20 years before his retirement in September 1977. Appellant Waldo A. Brown was an attorney in the community served by that court. This case involves the improper disposition of some 85 misdemeanor cases in which the defendants were charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (former Veh. Code, § 23102, now § 23152). In each case, Martin was the judge and Brown was the defense attorney. In a five-count indictment returned by the Los Angeles County Grand Jury, appellants were charged as follows: Count I, conspiracy to obstruct justice (Pen. Code,
§ 182, subd. 5), consisting of 10 overt acts; count II, conspiracy to falsify documents (Pen. Code, §§ 182 and 134), consisting of 10 overt acts; count III, conspiracy to falsify public records (Pen. Code, § 182 and Gov. Code, § 6200), consisting of 10 overt acts; count IV, falsifying documents (Pen. Code, § 134); and count V, falsifying public records (Gov. Code, 6200).
Appellants' motion to set aside the indictment (Pen. Code, § 995) was granted as to counts II through V, but denied as to count I. After a court trial, both Martin and Brown were found guilty of conspiracy to obstruct justice, as charged in count I of the indictment, and were sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law. These appeals followed.
Martin contends: (1) Penal Code section 182, subdivision 5, is void for vagueness and uncertainty; (2) there was insufficient evidence to establish that he was guilty of conspiracy to obstruct justice; (3) he was wrongly deprived of a postindictment preliminary hearing; and (4) the court should not have sentenced him to state prison.
Simply stated, Brown's contention is that the facts of this case do not support a conviction for conspiracy to obstruct justice because none of his or Martin's actions constituted criminal conduct.
For purposes of trial, the cases forming the basis of the prosecution were divided into five categories, based upon the type of disposition made. All of the dispositions occurred during the period between May 4, 1976, and September 17, 1977, when Martin retired. The purpose of presenting the cases in categories was to show that, in cases involving clients of Brow
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|