People v. Caudillo, Cr. 5477
| Decision Date | 23 December 1955 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5477 |
| Citation | 291 P.2d 191,138 Cal.App.2d 183 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Manuel Tony CAUDILLO, Defendant and Appellant. |
Gladys Towles Root, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., James D. Loebl, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
In an information filed by the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, defendant was accused in two counts of violation of Section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code (sale of heroin), the first alleged offense having taken place on or about February 14, 1955, and the second on or about February 17th of the same year. The information also charged that defendant had suffered a prior conviction for a violation of Section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code, a misdemeanor. To each count of the information defendant pleaded not guilty and denied the alleged prior conviction. When the cause was called for trial, by stipulation it was submitted to the court on the testimony adduced at the preliminary examination with each party reserving the right to introduce additional evidence. Following a reading of the transcript of the preliminary examination, the People rested. Defendant testified as a witness in his own behalf. He was adjudged guilty on each of the two counts. Motion for a new trial was denied and the allegation of a prior conviction was found to be untrue. Defendant was sentenced to State Prison. From the judgment of conviction and from the order denying his motion for a new trial defendant prosecutes this appeal.
Concerning the factual background surrounding this prosecution, the record reflects that Frank Vacio, a Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff assigned to the narcotics detail, saw defendant on February 14, 1955 at approximately 1:45 p. m. at 725 South Bernal. At that time Mr. Vacio asked defendant if the latter had any narcotics. He stated that he did not, but he knew where he might get some and asked if Vacio would drive him there. Mr. Vacio said he would and defendant took him to several locations in East Los Angeles.
After several phone calls, defendant instructed the Deputy Sheriff to drive to the corner of Wabash and Evergreen Avenues. Defendant then asked Mr. Vacio for $15 for half a gram, which he received. Caudillo then left the vehicle and returned approximately three or four minutes later. Then Mr. Vacio drove the defendant back to the latter's home. He asked Mr. Vacio if he wanted to 'fix' there. The officer refused and defendant gave him four gelatin capsules containing a whitish powder and said, 'Well, I'm going to keep one of the caps for myself'. Mr. Vacio then left. The latter also saw defendant on February 17, 1955 at 725 South Bernal Street. Defendant asked him if he wanted to 'connect' again and Mr. Vacio replied, 'Yes'. Again they went to several locations and made a phone call before they drove to the nineteen hundred block on Bailey Street in East Los Angeles. Mr. Vacio then was asked by defendant for $10 for the narcotics. Vacio gave the money to him. Defendant left the car, returned approximately three minutes later and asked Mr. Vacio to drive him to 725 South Bernal Street. At that address, as he was departing, Caudillo handed Mr. Vacio three gelatine capsules containing a whitish powder and Mr. Vacio drove away.
Deputy Sheriff Vacio again saw defendant on March 1, 1955, at the above address. Deputy Fletcher and Sergeant Cook were also with him at that time. They had a conversation with Caudillo and the statement were freely and voluntarily given. At that time Mr. Vacio asked Caudillo if it were not true he had given the latter money for narcotic purchases and that Caudillo had given him in turn the narcotics and Caudillo replied, 'Yes'.
Testifying as a witness in his own behalf, defendant stated that he knew Officer Vacio. He also testified that he had previous to that time been in Lincoln Heights Jail, having been arrested on suspicion of narcotics and burglary. He stated he was released from Loncoln Heights and talked with the officers about helping them. He admitted that he saw Mr. Vacio when the latter came to his house and hollered his nickname 'Pinker'. Vacio and Caudillo then had a conversation in which Caudillo stated that Vacio asked him if he could 'pickup' for Mr. Vacio. Caudillo admitted that he got five caps of narcotics on that day for Mr. Vacio. He claimed, however, that at that time he was working under an agreement with the Los Angeles Police Department. He claimed that the agreement was to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Benford
...with which he committed the crime charged (People v. Ramos (1956), 146 Cal.App.2d 110, 113(5), 303 P.2d 783; People v. Caudillo (1955), 138 Cal.App.2d 183, 186, 291 P.2d 191; People v. Neal (1953), 120 Cal.App.2d 329, 333(5), 261 P.2d 13; People v. Branch (1953), 119 Cal.App.2d 490, 494(3),......
-
People v. Goree
...most probative. The Supreme Court cites four cases of this type: People v. Ramos, 146 Cal.App.2d 110, 303 P.2d 783; People v. Caudillo, 138 Cal.App.2d 183, 291 P.2d 191; People v. Neal, 120 Cal.App.2d 329, 261 P.2d 13 and People v. Branch, 119 Cal.App.2d 490, 260 P.2d 27. These four cases, ......
-
People v. Woolwine
...he obtained from Pearl; this constitutes no defense. (People v. Neal, 120 Cal.App.2d 329, 332, 261 P.2d 13; People v. Caudillo, 138 Cal.App.2d 183, 186, 291 P.2d 191; People v. Zeigler, 212 Cal.App.2d 305, 306, 27 Cal.Rptr. 865; People v. Barone, 250 Cal.App.2d ---, --- - ---, 58 Cal.Rptr. ......
- Orbach v. Zern