People v. Davis

• Decision Date: 03 December 1969
• Docket Number: Cr. 16288
• Citation: 82 Cal.Rptr. 561,2 Cal.App.3d 230
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Armon Leon DAVIS, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 561

82 Cal.Rptr. 561

2 Cal.App.3d 230

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Armon Leon DAVIS, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 16288.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Dec. 3, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 22, 1969.

Jesse L. Halpern, Encino, for appellant under appointment by the Court of Appeal.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Miller and Lawrence L. Keethe, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.

LILLIE, Associate Justice.

Defendant was charged with robbery (§ 211, Pen. Code) and violation, Dangerous Weapons Control Law (§ 12020, Pen.Code). His motions under sections 995 and 1538.5, Penal Code, were denied. The court found defendant guilty as charged and fixed the degree of the robbery at first degree but made no finding on the allegation that defendant had suffered two prior felony convictions (grand theft and violation, Dyer Act). He appeals from the judgment.

Around 3 p.m. on May 30, 1968, defendant entered a liquor store and pointing a shotgun at Herman Goldberg, ordered him to give him the money; Goldberg was 7 to 8 feet from defendant who was wearing a blue jacket. He opened the cash register and gave defendant over $300, then defendant damanded a wallet from a man who had entered the store; the man started to fight defendant and Goldberg ran out crying for help. Defendant drove away in a 1958 or 1959 black Chevrolet Convertible; Goldberg gave the first three letters of the license plate (FZE) to police, and a girl who arrived just as defendant departed got the rest of the license number for the officers.

Upon reading the robbery report, Officer Hambly recognized the license of the car (FZE 449) as connected with the arrest of James Morgan in April 1968, thus on May 30, 1968, he caused a bulletin to be circulated within the police department asking that the car be stopped and any occupants held for investigation on the robbery. On June 1 Morgan and Eddy Potter were apprehended in the vehicle. Officer Hambly advised Morgan of his constitutional rights; Morgan told him that on the evening of May 29 he loaned the car to Potter who was to return it within about 30 hours, when the car was not returned he went to look for it and found it parked near 6th and Union Drive. After Officer Hambly advised Potter of his constitutional rights, Potter told him he borrowed the car from Morgan and drove to 508 Union Drive (near 6th and Union) where he met others including Steve Cassidy and 'Pete' in apartment 209; he, 'Pete' and Cassidy had a party there which lasted through the evening until the next day; he became so intoxicated he could not say what happened to the car during that time but Cassidy had the key. Potter described 'Pete' as tall and slender--approximately 6 feet 2, weighing 170 pounds and having sandy brown crewcut hair.

On June 3, Officers Hambly and Patterson knocked on apartment 209; defendant answered. Officer Hambly asked if Steve was there; defendant said, 'No'; then they identified themselves as police officers and asked if they could come in and look; defendant said they could and stepped back from the door; after the officers entered, Officer Hambly asked defendant his name; he answered, "Bill James' or something like that'; asked for identification, defendant said he lost his wallet and did not have any; Officer Hambly showed him a photograph of 'Steve' and asked if he knew the man; defendant said, 'Yes, that's Steve. I know him. He used to stay here, but he isn't staying here any longer'; then Officer Hambly asked if he (defendant) rented the apartment and defendant said he did under the name of 'Pete Davis.' Because he knew that a man named 'Pete' was with Potter in the period during which the automobile was seen at the robbery and because defendant fit the general description of one of the robbery suspects, Officer Hambly arrested him for robbery. After advising him of his constitutional rights the officers searched the apartment and found a blue jacket with 15 shotgun shells in a pocket and a shotgun wrapped in brown paper on a shelf over the pole on which the jacket was hanging. At the police building Officer Hambly informed defendant he was certain he was responsible for a number of holdups, then asked if he would object to appearing in a lineup for the purpose of trying to establish whether he was a suspect in the Goldberg robbery; defendant said, 'No. Go ahead'; that evening Goldberg identified defendant from the lineup. Later Officer Hambly went to the liquor store and showed Goldberg two photographs and asked if he could identify the robber; Goldberg selected defendant's photograph as 'the one who held me up'; there was no writing on the photographs and the officer said nothing to him when he showed them.

On June 4 the officer talked to defendant and asked him if he recalled being admonished of his constitutional rights the day he was arrested and defendant said that he did; he continued, 'Well, understanding these things, do you want to discuss with me this case of robber' and defendant said, 'Yes,' but 'How many cases did you make on me?'; the officer replied, 'Well, would you go for two?' and defendant said, 'Which ones?'; he asked defendant if he would go for the robbery on May 30 and defendant replied, 'Okay.' Then he asked defendant about the shotgun and defendant said a friend who occupied the apartment before him brought it to the apartment and he had used it in the robbery; when asked if the blue jacket he was then wearing was the same he wore during the robbery defendant said it was; he asked if there was anything else he would like to tell concerning the robbery and defendant said he and a couple of others had gone to the store in the black Chevrolet Convertible and he went in alone with the shotgun and held it up; he was kind of drunk and mixed up and did not know how much money he got, he returned to the car and they drove away. Asked if he had any difficulty in the store, defendant replied some drunk or somebody came sticking his nose in and got in the way.

Defendant neither testified nor offered a defense.

In support of his contention that there was not probable cause for his arrest thus the jacket, shotgun and his statements were inadmissible, appellant argues that the officers acted only on information obtained from Potter whose reliability was unknown to the police and on a description in the crime report, the source of which was unknown to Officer Hambly.

'A peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant whenever he has reasonable cause to believe that the person whom he has arrested has committed a felony. Reasonable or probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officer at the moment of the arrest are sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the defendant has committed an offense. (People v. Talley, 65 Cal.2d 830, 835--836, 56 Cal.Rptr. 492, 423 P.2d 564.)' (PEOPLE V. HOGAN, 71 CAL.2D ---, ---, 80 CAL.RPTR. 28, 29, 457 P.2D 868, 869;^A People v. Lara, 67 Cal.2d 365, 374, 62 Cal.Rptr. 586, 432 P.2d 202; People v. Schader, 62 Cal.2d 716, 722, 44 Cal.Rptr. 193, 401 P.2d 665.) 'Each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances (citations).' (People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407, 412, 2 Cal.Rptr. 14, 17, 348 P.2d 577, 580.) 'In reviewing the trial court's finding on this question we must bear in mind that the rule allowing the trial court to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their evidence is applicable, and that we must accept all evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in support of the lower court's ruling.' (People v. Shapiro, 213 Cal.App.2d 618, 620, 28 Cal.Rptr. 907, 908.) After a full hearing of the matter the trial court found the officers had probable cause, and there is sufficient evidence to support its determination. (People v. Lara, 67 Cal.2d 365, 374, 62 Cal.Rptr. 586, 432 P.2d 202.)

Information obtained from others may be relied upon to show probable cause. Although information provided by a known informant of unproved reliability or by an anonymous informer ordinarily is not alone sufficient to warrant an arrest, it is sufficient if it is corroborated in essential respects by such other facts, sources or circumstances as would justify the conclusion that reliance on the information was reasonable. (People v. Talley, 65 Cal.2d 830, 835--836, 56 Cal.Rptr. 492, 423 P.2d 564; People v. Gallegos, 62 Cal.2d 176, 179, 41 Cal.Rptr. 590, 397 P.2d 174; People v. Reeves, 61 Cal.2d 268, 273--274, 38 Cal.Rptr. 1, 391 P.2d 393; Willson v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 291, 294, 294 P.2d 36.) 'Such corroboration need not itself amount to reasonable cause to arrest; its only purpose is to provide the element of 'reliability' missing when the police have had no prior experience with the informant. Accordingly, it is enough if it gives the officers reasonable grounds to believe the informant is telling the truth, for in this type of case the issue is 'not whether the information obtained by the officers emanated from a reliable source, but whether the officers could reasonably rely upon that information under the circumstances.' (Citations.)' (People v. Lara, 67 Cal.2d 365, 374--375, 62 Cal.Rptr. 586, 593, 432 P.2d 202, 209.)

The information obtained from Potter was sufficiently corroborated to warrant the officers' reliance thereon. Immediately after the robbery Goldberg gave police the first three letters of the license plate of the get-away car (the three numerals were supplied by another witness) and a description of the robber. ¹ Upon reading the robbery report ² Officer Hambly recognized the license number as one he had previously dealt with in the arrest of James Morgan in April 1968, and circulated a bulletin in the police department asking that the car be stopped. Two days later Morgan and Potter were apprehended in the vehicle. Morgan told him that on May 29, 1968, he loaned the car to Potter...