People v. Casado

• Decision Date: 17 May 1960
• Docket Number: Cr. 6851
• Citation: 4 Cal.Rptr. 851,181 Cal.App.2d 4
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Louis C. CASADO and Edward F. Murguia, Defendants, Edward F. Murguia, Appellant.

Page 851

4 Cal.Rptr. 851

181 Cal.App.2d 4

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Louis C. CASADO and Edward F. Murguia, Defendants Edward F. Murguia, Appellant.

Cr. 6851.

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

May 17, 1960.

Wellington Y. Kwan, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., and S. Clark Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

VALLEE, Justice.

By indictment Casado and Murguia were charged jointly with selling heroin. A jury found them guilty as charged. Murguia, who will be referred to as defendant, appeals from the judgment sentencing him to state prison.

About 8:30 a. m. on October 31, 1958, Officer Villalba of the Los Angeles Police Department, working under cover, saw defendant at 942 South Indiana Street in Los Angeles. Defendant approached Villalba and asked him if he was 'trying to score.' 'Score' means to buy narcotics. Villalba said he was, and asked defendant if he had some good 'stuff.' Defendant said he had some 'real good stuff.' Villalba told defendant he wanted half a gram. Defendant told Villalba to go with him. They went into the Department of Employment. Defendant approached Casado, and Villalba went to a bulletin board ans stood there. Defendant and Casado talked together. In about two minutes defendant motioned Villalba to go into the restroom, which he did. Casado followed. Villalba started to hand defendant a $10 bill and Casado said, 'Give me the money.' Villalba gave Casado the $10 bill and defendant handed him (Villalba) five capsules of heroin and said, 'Give me a dollar.' Villalba said, 'I already gave him $10.' Casado said, 'This stuff is real good. It's worth $11.' Villalba then gave defendant a dollar.

Defendant testified that on October 29, 1958 he was picked up by the police, booked, and processed for an alleged burglary. To the best of his knowledge he was in Los Angeles Hollenbeck Precinct jail between 8:30 and 8:45 a. m. on October 31, 1958. He had seen Casado around but he did not know him personally. He did not see Casado in the morning of October 31, 1958. At no time on that day was he in the Department of Employment, nor did he engage in the sale of narcotics with anyone. He was released from Hollenbeck jail in the afternoon or evening of October 31, 1958.

In rebuttal, Officer Cunningham of the Los Angeles Police Department testified that records showing the time of arrest and release of all prisoners taken into custody in all stations of the Los Angeles Police Department are kept at the Lincoln Heights jail. The records are kept in the regular course of business. Entries are made about the times of events to which they relate. He was not custodian of the records at Lincoln Heights jail. He did not have anything to do with the entry, recording, or filing of records at Lincoln Heights jail. The prisoners' booking and jail record kept at Lincoln Heights jail is an original document. It shows the arrest of defendant on October 28, 1958 and his release from Hollenbeck jail on October 30, 1958. The custody record, also kept at Lincoln Heights jail, is an original document. It also shows defendant was released from Hollenbeck jail on October 30, 1958. The original 'notification of release' record kept at Hollenbeck jail in the regular course of business shows defendant was released from Hollenbeck jail on October 30, 1958 at 5:52 p. m.

Defendant's first point is that the court should have granted his motion for a new trial due to inadequate, token representation received at the trial. No motion for a new trial was made by Murguia or in his behalf. Present counsel for defendant filed the notice of appeal. It is only from the judgment. The point that the court should have granted a nonexistent motion for a new trial has no merit. However, we have considered the point in that if it is a fact it might have affected the verdict and judgment.

From his arraignment on February 27, 1959 to May 13, 1959, the date set for trial, defendant was represented by the public defender. On May 13, on defendant's motion, the public defender was relieved as his counsel and defendant was substituted in propria persona. Trial was continued to May 14. When the cause was called on May 14, Mr. Arthur, attorney for Casado, informed the court defendant had discharged his attorney and requested the court to discuss the matter with defendant. He said he would be present for Casado but did not like the further responsibility unless defendant wished to appoint him as his counsel, in which event he 'would be glad to represent him.' The court then talked to defendant in chambers. Defendant told the court he felt he could better represent himself; that if Mr. Arthur would like to represent him, he had more confidence in him. Mr. Arthur stated he would 'be very glad to represent' defendant. 'The Court: Very well. You take Mr. Arthur as your attorney and we will note him in the record as being your attorney then. Defendant Murguia: Yes, sir. The Court: Mr. Arthur will represent both the defendants in this case.' A ten-minute recess was taken. A jury was then selected and the district...