Sutton claim in California

2010Thus, the application of the 10-day grace period to a jointly charged codefendant who has not consented to trial beyond the 60-day period was not at issue. ( See Sutton, supra , 48 Cal.4th at p. 546 ["in this case each defendant repeatedly informed the trial court that he was not willing to . . . consent to having his case brought to trial beyond the 60-day period; the trial court, in permitting the matter to trail beyond that period on a day-to-day basis . . . expressly rested its continuance orders on a determination that there was `good cause' for the delay"].) Accordingly, we agree with Sm

1994Accordingly, we denied the request. [18] Given our disposition on the third factor, we need not reach the remaining factors of the Sutton test ( People v. Delgado, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 329, fn. 7 ), or review the trial court's other bases for denying the motion for new trial, i.e., that if the newly discovered evidence had been proffered at trial, the trial court would have concluded it was irrelevant, and if relevant, would have excluded it under Evidence Code section 352. [19] We discuss those arguments that are sufficiently developed to be cognizable.

1994Accordingly, we denied the request. [18] Given our disposition on the third factor, we need not reach the remaining factors of the Sutton test ( People v. Delgado, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 329, fn. 7 ), or review the trial court's other bases for denying the motion for new trial, i.e., that if the newly discovered evidence had been proffered at trial, the trial court would have concluded it was irrelevant, and if relevant, would have excluded it under Evidence Code section 352. [19] We discuss those arguments that are sufficiently developed to be cognizable.

1993Co. v. Barbara B. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1076, 1081, 1085 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 210 , 846 P.2d 792 ].) *1791 Despite this considerable body of law appellant claims that the rule should not be applied in this case because the question of whether Sutton’s claim was covered under the policy turned upon resolution of a factual issue (i.e., whether she and Amato resided together at the time of the accident) which was independent of and extraneous to the issues involved in the underlying tort action.

1993Co. v. Barbara B. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1076, 1081, 1085 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 210 , 846 P.2d 792 ].) *1791 Despite this considerable body of law appellant claims that the rule should not be applied in this case because the question of whether Sutton’s claim was covered under the policy turned upon resolution of a factual issue (i.e., whether she and Amato resided together at the time of the accident) which was independent of and extraneous to the issues involved in the underlying tort action.

1973These distinct acts of violence not incidental to the robbery, justify defendants’ convictions for assault as well as robbery and would also support punishment for both crimes by separate sentences. 1 (People v. Williams, 244 Cal.App.2d 658, 663 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 392 ]; People v. Johnson, 270 Cal.App.2d 204, 209 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 605 ]; People v. Birdwell, 253 Cal.App.2d 621, 633 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 536 ].) *272 Sutton’s claim he did not participate in the acts of violence which constituted an assault beyond that incidental to the robbery, is without merit.

1973These distinct acts of violence not incidental to the robbery, justify defendants’ convictions for assault as well as robbery and would also support punishment for both crimes by separate sentences. 1 (People v. Williams, 244 Cal.App.2d 658, 663 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 392 ]; People v. Johnson, 270 Cal.App.2d 204, 209 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 605 ]; People v. Birdwell, 253 Cal.App.2d 621, 633 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 536 ].) *272 Sutton’s claim he did not participate in the acts of violence which constituted an assault beyond that incidental to the robbery, is without merit.

1973These distinct acts of violence not incidental to the robbery, justify defendants’ convictions for assault as well as robbery and would also support punishment for both crimes by separate sentences. 1 (People v. Williams, 244 Cal.App.2d 658, 663 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 392 ]; People v. Johnson, 270 Cal.App.2d 204, 209 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 605 ]; People v. Birdwell, 253 Cal.App.2d 621, 633 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 536 ].) *272 Sutton’s claim he did not participate in the acts of violence which constituted an assault beyond that incidental to the robbery, is without merit.

1973These distinct acts of violence not incidental to the robbery, justify defendants’ convictions for assault as well as robbery and would also support punishment for both crimes by separate sentences. 1 (People v. Williams, 244 Cal.App.2d 658, 663 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 392 ]; People v. Johnson, 270 Cal.App.2d 204, 209 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 605 ]; People v. Birdwell, 253 Cal.App.2d 621, 633 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 536 ].) *272 Sutton’s claim he did not participate in the acts of violence which constituted an assault beyond that incidental to the robbery, is without merit.

1973These distinct acts of violence not incidental to the robbery, justify defendants’ convictions for assault as well as robbery and would also support punishment for both crimes by separate sentences. 1 (People v. Williams, 244 Cal.App.2d 658, 663 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 392 ]; People v. Johnson, 270 Cal.App.2d 204, 209 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 605 ]; People v. Birdwell, 253 Cal.App.2d 621, 633 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 536 ].) *272 Sutton’s claim he did not participate in the acts of violence which constituted an assault beyond that incidental to the robbery, is without merit.

1973These distinct acts of violence not incidental to the robbery, justify defendants’ convictions for assault as well as robbery and would also support punishment for both crimes by separate sentences. 1 (People v. Williams, 244 Cal.App.2d 658, 663 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 392 ]; People v. Johnson, 270 Cal.App.2d 204, 209 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 605 ]; People v. Birdwell, 253 Cal.App.2d 621, 633 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 536 ].) *272 Sutton’s claim he did not participate in the acts of violence which constituted an assault beyond that incidental to the robbery, is without merit.