People v. Cantley

• Decision Date: 26 September 1958
• Docket Number: Cr. 6203
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Johnnie Lee CANTLEY, Defendant and Respondent. . Division 3, California
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 993

329 P.2d 993

163 Cal.App.2d 762

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Johnnie Lee CANTLEY, Defendant and Respondent.

Cr. 6203.

District Court of Appeal, Second District. Division 3, California.

Sept. 26, 1958.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., William B. McKesson, Dist. Atty., Jere J. Sullivan, Lewis Watnick, and Robert Lederman, Deputy Dist. Attys., Los Angeles, for appellant.

No appearance for respondent.

VALLEE, Justice.

Appeal by the People from an order setting aside the information on the ground defendant had been committed without reasonable or probable cause. Pen.Code, § 995.

The information charged that on November 5, 1957, defendant did unlawfully own and have in his possession and under his custody and control a .38 caliber revolver capable of being concealed on the person and having a barrel less than 12 inches in length, and that defendant had theretofore, on November 15, 1940, been convicted of a felony by the United States District Court of the Western District of Arkansas in violation of section 12021 of the Penal Code.

Penal Code, section 12021, provides that any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the United States 'who owns or has in his possession or under his custody or control any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed, upon the person is guilty of a public offense.'

Mix Lewis, a police officer of the city of Los Angeles, testified at the preliminary hearing as follows: about 10:45 p. m. on November 5, 1957, he, in company with another police officer, saw defendant get out of his automobile in front of 1401 Santee Street in Los Angeles, enter an apartment house, stay two or three minutes, return and get into his car, make a U-turn on Santee and head north from 14th Street on Santee; he and the other officer were in a police vehicle; about 100 feet south of Pico Boulevard he had defendant pull his car over to the curb; ¹ as defendant pulled over to the curb he 'saw the defendant reach--as if reaching under the seat--front seat of the vehicle'; defendant got out of his car, walked back toward the police car, and said, 'What did I do wrong, Officer?'; he asked defendant his name and where he was coming from; defendant said 'his name was Cantley and that he had just been over to 14th and Santee to see a friend of his by the name of John Benson'; he asked defendant what he put underneath the front seat of his car; defendant said, 'Nothing'; he had learned from a police report of a robbery and murder which occurred on November 2 at 4173 South Harvard in Los Angeles; the police report described the suspect as 'Approximately five eight or nine, 170 to 180 pounds; male Negro, dark complected; wearing a dark jacket and light pants'; at the time defendant said 'Nothing,' he (the officer) believed defendant had committed a felony--the robbery and murder at 4173 South Harvard; he then opened the car door on the driver's side, flashed a flashlight in the car, and saw a revolver lying on the floorboard on the driver's side; he took possession of the revolver; it had six live rounds of ammunition in the cylinder; defendant said he got the gun from a John Benson about three months before, he loaned the man $13 on the gun, he needed the money and had gone to see if he could get the money for the gun at 1402 Santee, that Benson was not at home so he was leaving.

The revolver, introduced in evidence at the preliminary hearing, was capable of being concealed on the person. Proof was made that defendant had been convicted of a felony on November 15, 1940, in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas.

'On a motion to set aside an information, the question of the guilt or innocence of the defendant is not before the court, nor does the issue concern the quantum of evidence necessary to sustain a judgment of conviction. The court is only to determine whether the magistrate, acting as a man of ordinary caution or prudence could conscientiously entertain a reasonable suspicion that a public offense had been committed in which the defendant had participated. [Citation.] A court may not substitute its judgment as to the weight of the evidence for that of the magistrate. If there is some evidence to support the information, the courts will not inquire into its sufficiency. Under section 995 of the Penal Code, the information will be set aside only where there is no evidence that a crime has been committed or there is no evidence to connect the deffendant with a crime shown to have been committed.' People v. Platt, 124 Cal.App.2d 123, 131, 268 P.2d 529, 534.

Reasonable cause to believe a person had committed a felony is such a state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest and strong suspicion, that the person is guilty of a felony. People v. Moore, 141 Cal.App.2d 87, 89, 296 P.2d 91. In determining whether an arresting officer had probable cause to believe a person had committed a felony and therefore was justified in placing him under arrest, the court looks only at the facts and circumstances presented to the officer at the time he was...