People v. DeCosse
Decision Date | 16 July 1986 |
Citation | 183 Cal.App.3d 404,228 Cal.Rptr. 114 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Steven Donald DeCOSSE, Defendant and Appellant. A030751. |
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Ronald E. Niver, Josanna Berkow, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for plaintiff and respondent.
Carolyn Morris, Berkeley, for defendant and appellant.
Defendant Steven Donald DeCosse (DeCosse ) was convicted by a jury's verdicts of the crimes of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), carrying a concealed firearm upon his person (Pen. Code, § 12025), and carrying a loaded firearm on his person while in a public place in an incorporated city (Pen. Code, § 12031). He appeals from the judgment entered on the jury's verdicts.
We affirm the judgment for the reasons we now state.
The appeal's principal contentions relate to DeCosse's unsuccessful Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress certain evidence deemed essential to his conviction.
Our authority on such a contention is stated by People v. Leyba, 29 Cal.3d 591, 596-597, 174 Cal.Rptr. 867, 629 P.2d 961, as follows:
"Evidence, to be 'substantial' [our emphasis] must be of ponderable legal significance ... reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value." (People v. Johnson, 26 Cal.3d 557, 576, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738; Estate of Teed, 112 Cal.App.2d 638, 644, 247 P.2d 54.) And when a jury's verdict or a trial court's factual determination is attacked on the ground that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, the power of an appellate court begins and ends with the determination as to whether, on the entire record, there is substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the finding of fact, and when two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts as found, a reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court or jury. It is of no consequence that the trier of fact believing other evidence, or drawing different inferences, might have reached a contrary conclusion. (People v. Johnson, supra, 26 Cal.3d 557, 576-577, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738; Grainger v. Antoyan, 48 Cal.2d 805, 807, 313 P.2d 848.)
We consider the first two of DeCosse's contentions as they are phrased by him: "The initial detention of appellant was unlawful as it exceeded the bounds of time or reason necessary to stop him [and] the exploratory search of the truck was unjustified and beyond the scope of that permitted for minor traffic violations."
For some reason not apparent from the record, the municipal and superior court proceedings on the several charges were inordinately time taking and delayed. Witness' recollection of the events leading up to DeCosse's arrest differed in some respects from hearing to hearing and to trial. We state the material and relevant evidence as it reasonably could have been, and presumably was, found true by the superior court on the motion to suppress.
Police Officer Conway had been advised by the narcotics bureau that one Walker was heavily involved with narcotics or dangerous drugs, that he had a prior police record, that he had a "fondness for weapons" and to "be careful" of him. And Officer Conway "knew" defendant DeCosse. Following such information Officer Conway had occasion to make a here unchallenged stop of a black pickup truck. It was occupied by Walker, and by DeCosse whom the officer "recognized." A "warrant check" disclosed outstanding warrants against the vehicle, but the car and its occupants were nevertheless allowed to depart without further incident. The vehicle stop was reported to police headquarters, and the officer was told that the county sheriff's office was presently working on a case in which both Walker and DeCosse were "heavily involved in dealing drugs."
Soon thereafter a citizen told Officer Conway "that a black pickup truck had driven by and some garbage had come off the truck or fallen off the truck, he wasn't sure, but it landed in front of his house." The truck was described as containing "a bed, sleeping type bed in the back of it." A few minutes later and a short distance away the officer observed such a pickup truck with its described contents. Standing alongside it were DeCosse and Walker. Each produced driver's licenses, and they admitted that the garbage "had probably fallen off the truck." Probable violations of Penal Code sections 374b and 374b.5, misdemeanors, thus appeared. And the vehicle's registration was found not to be in the name of DeCosse or Walker. The officer decided to, and did, make a "warrant check" of the pickup truck's occupants.
DeCosse then said he wished to return to his vehicle for a cigarette, and to be sure that DeCosse obtained only a cigarette from the vehicle, the officer accompanied him. As DeCosse opened the pickup truck's door, in plain view in the door's "map compartment," the officer observed what appeared to be, and was, an opened alcoholic beverage container. There thus appeared a probable violation of Vehicle Code section 23223. The officer and DeCosse returned to the rest of the group. Then, as testified by the officer:
After calling for the police backup the officer went back to the pickup truck looking for further evidence of weapons. In a brown paper bag he found a bottle of white powder; it turned out not to be contraband. Backup police officers soon arrived, and it was decided to make a weapon search of DeCosse and Walker. Upon the officer's statement that he was going to search for guns or other weapons, DeCosse broke away and ran. As he did so the officer could see that: Soon DeCosse stumbled and fell, and he was apprehended and secured by the officer.
Believing that in his flight DeCosse had thrown something away from his person the officer retraced DeCosse's flight path. In doing so he found "a loaded .380 semi-automatic pistol," and a bandana handkerchief which contained the methamphetamine of one of the charges against him. And the handgun was the basis of the other charges. They, and statements thereafter made by DeCosse, were the subjects of the superior court motion to suppress.
Adverting now...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Castaneda, G015547
...Castaneda's denial of ownership or responsibility; this was done simultaneously with the warrant check. (Cf. People v. DeCosse (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 404, 410, 228 Cal.Rptr. 114 [a series of suspicious circumstances warranted a radio check and demand for verification of questionable informat......
-
People v. Ingram
...on such matters, whether express or implied, must be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence.' " (People v. Decosse (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 404, 407, 228 Cal.Rptr. 114, quoting People v. Lawler (1973) 9 Cal.3d 156, 160, 107 Cal.Rptr. 13, 507 P.2d 621, emphasis omitted.) "[W]hen t......
-
People v. Foster
... ... 386.) Appellant's prior was eight years old, which is not impermissibly remote. (People v. Burns (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 734, 737-739, 234 Cal.Rptr. 547 [20-year-old conviction [201 Cal.App.3d 26] held not inadmissible as a matter of law]; People v. deCosse (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 404, 411-412, 228 Cal.Rptr. 114 [12-year-old conviction held not inadmissible as a matter of law].) ... PROOF OF PRIOR CONVICTION ... In a bifurcated trial after the finding of guilt, the jury found that appellant had previously been convicted of voluntary ... ...
-
Joseph G., In re
...38 Cal.Rptr.2d 902 ... 32 Cal.App.4th 1735, 97 Ed. Law Rep. 1109 ... In re JOSEPH G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law ... The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, ... JOSEPH G., a Minor, Defendant and Appellant ... No. D020115 ... Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, ... (See People v. Smith (1976) 17 Cal.3d 845, 852, 132 Cal.Rptr. 397, 553 P.2d 557; People v. DeCosse ... (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 404, 410, 228 Cal.Rptr. 114.) The fact the mother named a particular student, apparently identified herself, and was a ... ...
-
Character and habit
...of incidents of the officer’s violence during the booking of other persons to impeach his credibility. People v. DeCosse (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3d 404, 412, 228 Cal. Rptr. 114. Allowing use of a 12-year-old conviction for impeachment of defendant was not an abuse of discretion. Proof of Care ......
-
Table of cases
...843, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 863, §19:80 Debose, People v. (2014) 59 Cal. 4th 177, 172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 606, §1:70 DeCosse, People v. (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3d 404, 228 Cal. Rptr. 114, §11:10 Dee v. PCS Property Management, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 390, 94 Cal. Rptr. 3d 456, §17:130 Deeter v. Ang......