# People v. Crowson

> California Supreme Court · March 24, 1983 · 33 Cal. 3d 623

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9529806

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EARL BRADLEY CROWSON, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 24, 1983
- **Citations:** 33 Cal. 3d 623; 190 Cal. Rptr. 165; 660 P.2d 389; 1983 Cal. LEXIS 169
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Richardson
- **Judges:** Kaus, Broussard, Richardson, Bird
- **Cited by:** 97 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by People v. Myers, 5 Cal. 4th 1193 (1993).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9529806

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating, "Objectively, [the suspect] surely had no reason to suspect that his conversation with a suspected accomplice in the back of the police car would be afforded any kind of confidentiality”

## Opinion text

RICHARDSON, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur with the majority opinion to the extent that it affirms defendant’s robbery and burglary convictions. I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s further conclusion that defendant’s sentence may not be enhanced by reason of his prior federal felony conviction.
The obvious purpose of Penal Code section 667.5 is to enhance the terms of recidivist felony offenders; under that provision, offenses committed in other jurisdictions “count” for enhancement purposes if they would be considered felonies in this state. (Subd. (f).) Here, defendant pleaded guilty to a federal drug conspiracy indictment alleging the commission of two overt acts. Would this offense be deemed a felony under California law? It seems to me clear that it would.
The majority speculates that the prior offense might not have involved any overt acts, despite the indictment’s contrary allegations. If that were indeed true, why would defendant have entered his guilty plea? As the majority concedes, although some federal cases appear to have dispensed with the overt act requirement, numerous cases from the Ninth Circuit (wherein defendant was charged) strongly suggest that the commission of overt acts remains an essential element of a federal drug conspiracy offense. (Ante, p. 631 and cases cited.) *637 That being so, we may reasonably assume that defendant’s guilty plea admitted the overt act allegations.
I would affirm the judgment in its entirety.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9529806. Public record. Not legal advice.