People v. Chavez

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: GRIFFIN
• Citation: People v. Chavez, 32 Cal.Rptr. 450, 218 Cal.App.2d 721 (Cal. App. 1963)
• Decision Date: 29 July 1963
• Docket Number: Cr. 1848
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Le Roy CHAVEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 450

32 Cal.Rptr. 450

218 Cal.App.2d 721

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Le Roy CHAVEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 1848.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

July 29, 1963.

Don R. Work, El Centro, for defendant and appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

GRIFFIN, Presiding Justice.

Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of selling heroin in violation of Health and Safety Code, Section 11501. Defendant admitted a prior felony conviction of unlawful possession of a narcotic by one having a previous narcotic conviction. He appealed from his conviction and asked this court to appoint an attorney to represent him on his appeal.

Don R. Work, who was appointed by this court to represent the defendant on this appeal has filed a complete and able report indicating that he has reviewed the record herein and stating that there is no merit in the appeal and that no valid grounds for reversing the conviction exist. (See People v. Dodd, 113 Cal.App.2d 682, 248 P.2d 965; People v. Sutton, 115 Cal.App.2d 751, 252 P.2d 633 and People v. Hickok, 120 Cal.App.2d 832, 262 P.2d 30.)

We have examined the record and agree that no reversible error appears. The evidence indicates that on June 1, 1961, Officer Fuentes, a narcotic agent working for the State of California in an undercover capacity, went in an automobile to the place where defendant was working in El Centro, California. Also present in the car were Joe Gonzales who was jointly charged with defendant in the count here involved, and Steve Silva. Fuentes had previously purchased narcotics from Gonzales. Upon stopping outside the place where defendant worked Gonzales left the car and walked about 15 feet toward defendant who was standing on the left side of the car. Fuentes testified that he observed this from his seat on the driver's side of the automobile. He saw defendant had a white paper object to Gonzales and Gonzales walked directly to Fuentes and handed him the white paper bindle. Fuentes gave Gonzales $30. Defendant then approached the agent's car and said to Silva 'How about a break, Loco?' The agent said that he responded to the question and refused defendant's request. The agent testified that the phrase, 'How about a break' is used in connection with the sale of narcotics and in criminal parlance means 'How about something in return for a person's trouble in helping in a transaction?' The contents of the bindle were subsequently found to contain heroin. The testimony of agent Fuentes was corroborated in part by that of agent Halcon who observed defendant's presence and the fact that defendant appeared to engage in a conversation with Gonzales near the automobile.

Gonzales testified that he and defendant were at the creamery at the time in question and that Fuentes and Silva were also there, but he denied that anything improper occurred. Defendant took the stand in his own defense and admitted the prior conviction for narcotics possession. He said that about four months before he had met Silva and that Silva had induced him to begin using narcotics again. He also said that Silva was furnishing him with narcotics. Defendant denied giving narcotics to Gonzales and said that he merely approached Silva and asked Silva for a 'fix' meaning a quantity of narcotics. Defendant said that at that time he was addicted to the use of narcotics.

It is apparent that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict. The elements of the offense charged are sale or furnishing a narcotic knowing that the substance so handled is a narcotic. The testimony of Officer Fuentes clearly shows that defendant participated in the sale of narcotics by supplying the narcotic substance to Gonzales who immediately completed the transaction. Defendant's knowledge of the narcotic nature of the substance involved can be inferred from his admission that he was a user of the same substance, heroin, at the time of his arrest. The conflict between the testimony of...