Faustina v. Superior Court, In and For Los Angeles County
| Decision Date | 29 October 1959 |
| Citation | 345 P.2d 543,174 Cal.App.2d 830 |
| Parties | James Godfred FAUSTINA, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent. Civ. 24091. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Crispus A. Wright, Los Angeles, for petitioner.
William B. McKesson, Dist. Atty., Jere J. Sullivan, Lewis Watnick, Harry Wood and Ralph F. Bagley, Deputy Dist. Attys., Los Angeles, for respondent.
Petitioner is charged with an attempt to receive stolen property. A motion to set aside the amended information having been denied, petitioner now seeks this writ under section 999a of the Penal Code.
The testimony taken at the preliminary hearing which is material to this decision may be summarized as follows:
Six automobile tires were stolen from a tire company on June 29, 1959, by Paul Woods and one Lewis. Within a few minutes after the theft they were arrested. The police took possession of the tires. Later that same day the tires were identified by employees of the tire company as the tires that had been stolen from their place of business.
At, or shortly after, his arrest, Woods told the arresting officers that he was taking the tires to sell to Mr. Faustina (the petitioner). Mr. Faustina was the operator of a service station. Woods testified that he had had a conversation with Faustina about one month before, at which conversation Faustina had told Woods that he needed some tires of a certain size.
After Woods told the arresting officers that it was his intention to sell the tires to Faustina, the officers suggested that he should proceed with his plans and complete the sale.
The evidence also discloses that before the sale to Faustina, and while Woods was in custody, although the officers made no specific promises to Woods, they did tell him that if he would cooperate with them they would do what they could to help him have the charge against him reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor. After the arrest of Faustina and before the preliminary hearing, Woods plead guilty to a charge of petty theft.
On July 1, 1959, Officer Burley put the tires in the back end of an automobile and, with Woods accompanying him drove to Faustina's service station. This was about 9 o'clock in the morning. Faustina was not there when they arrived. They were met by an employee in the service station and Woods informed the employee that he had some tires for Faustina. At Woods' request the employee made a telephone call and then handed the phone to Woods. It was Woods' testimony that he talked on the phone to Faustina and told him that he (Woods) had six tires and wanted to know if Faustina would be interested in them. Faustina replied that he would be. Faustina then told Woods that he would be coming to the service station in about an hour and that Woods should meet him there at that time.
Officer Burley and Woods then drove away from the service station and returned shortly before 10 o'clock. Faustina was not at the station when they returned but arrived shortly thereafter. He then walked over to the car in which Burley and Woods were sitting and looked at the tires in the back of the car. After a short conversation, Faustina told Burley and Woods to drive around the block and upon returning to the station to park in the wash rack. They did as he directed.
After the car was parked in the wash rack Faustina indicated an adjacent storeroom in which the tires were to be placed. As Woods and Burley removed the tires from the car they handed them to Faustina who rolled them into the storeroom.
After the tires had been unloaded and placed in the storeroom Faustina then told Woods and Burley to drive around the block again and upon their return to park by a coke machine on the service station lot. He stated that he then would have the money ready for them. Again they did as Faustina directed. When they returned to the station Faustina approached the car and handed Woods $60 in currency. At this time Faustina told them that he could use two tires of a particular size. He further told them that when he got rid of what he had 'we could bring him anything we liked.'
While these events were transpiring, Officer Burley was equipped with a small shortwave radio transmitter on his person. Another officer, Burton, was parked in a car about 150 to 200 feet from the service station. Officer Burton was equipped with a radio receiving device set to receive conversations broadcast by Burley's transmitter. Burton testified that he observed the activity at the service station and that he had heard portions of the conversation between Woods and Faustina over his radio receiver.
As soon as Burley and Woods left the service station Burton went to the station, identified himself as a police officer and told Faustina that he was under arrest for receiving stolen property. He informed Faustina that the tires were stolen and took possession of them. Faustina denied ever having seen the tires and stated that he had just come to work and knew nothing about them.
Officer Burton also testified that he had seen the tires in the evidence room at the police station prior to the time that he took possession of them at Faustina's service station.
It should be noted that Faustina was originally charged with receiving stolen property but at the time the matter came up for hearing on a motion under section 995 of the Penal Code the deputy district attorney moved to amend the information by interlineation, to allege an attempt to receive stolen property. The information was so amended and, by stipulation, the motion under Penal Code, section 995, was made to the amended information.
Except for the question of whether or not the tires in question were 'stolen' property, all of the elements necessary to sustain a charge of attempt to receive stolen property are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vitale
...upon and review of that state's decisions indicates that appellant is subject to prosecution. Faustina v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 174 Cal.App.2d 830, 345 P.2d 543 (1959); People v. Rojas, 55 Cal.2d 252, 10 Cal.Rptr. 465, 358 P.2d 921 (1961); See also, Annot., 57 A.L.R.3d 375, ......
-
People v. Cecil
...657, 662-663, 110 Cal.Rptr. 185; People v. Meyers (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 518, 522, 28 Cal.Rptr. 753; and Faustina v. Superior Court (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 830, 833-834, 345 P.2d 543. Cf. Young v. Superior Court (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 848, 853-854, 61 Cal.Rptr. 355, criticized in Lupo v. Superi......
-
People v. Rojas
...house with the consent and at the request of the owner.' As pointed out by the District Court of Appeal in Faustina v. Superior Court (1959), 174 Cal.App.2d 830, 833(1), 345 P.2d 543, 'The rule of the Jaffe case has been the subject of much criticism and discussion.' See Smith, Two Problems......
-
United States v. Hair, Crim. No. 2073-72.
...55 Cal.2d 252, 10 Cal. Rptr. 465, 358 P.2d 921 (1961); People v. Camodeca, 52 Cal.2d 142, 338 P.2d 903 (1959); Faustina v. Superior Court, 174 Cal.App.2d 830, 345 P.2d 543 (1959); People v. Siu, 126 Cal.App.2d 41, 271 P. 2d 575 (1954). In Parker the defendant was charged with attempted rece......