People v. Devaughn, Cr. 19468

Citation558 P.2d 872,135 Cal.Rptr. 786,18 Cal.3d 889
Decision Date25 January 1977
Docket NumberCr. 19468,C
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Parties, 558 P.2d 872 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mark Allen DeVAUGHN, Defendant and Appellant. The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Timothy Lewis DeVAUGHN, Defendant and Appellant. r. 19469. In Bank

David E. Kenner and Mel Albaum, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Walter King, Santa Monica, for defendants and appellants.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., S. Clark Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Shunji Asari, Edward T. Fogel, Jr., Penina S. Van Gelder and William V. Ballough, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

WRIGHT, Chief Justice.

Defendants Mark Allen DeVaughn and his brother Timothy Lewis DeVaughn appeal from judgments of conviction of burglary in the second degree. (Pen.Code, §§ 459, 460.) 1 Both defendants contend that their initial detentions and ensuing arrests were illegal; that extrajudicial statements constituting confessions were obtained as a result of illegal police conduct; and that the trial court erred in failing to grant defendants' motions to set aside the information (§ 995) and to suppress the extrajudicial statements on grounds that they were involuntarily made.

Following their unsuccessful motions to suppress the challenged statements each defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree in accordance with a plea bargain. Further in accordance with the bargain the trial court, after judgments, 2 issued certificates of probable cause which purported to preserve for review on appeal the issues raised on the motions. (See § 1237.5.) We are of the view that the extrajudicial statements should have been suppressed by reason of having been procured as the result of illegal arrests (Brown v. Illinois (1975) 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416), and nothing having occurred which attenuated or dissipated the taint of such illegalities (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441).

We hold, however, that the errors in failing to suppress the extrajudicial statements are not cognizable on appeal after guilty pleas, and that the trial court could not bargain to preserve such issues on appeal by issuance of certificates of probable cause. We conclude, accordingly, that the guilty pleas were improperly induced and we reverse the judgments.

At approximately 1 p.m., Police Officer Hamilton was on routine patrol in a maked patrol car. He observed defendants behind him running in his direction and backed his patrol car towards them. He lost sight of defendants when they left the street and ran between houses. Officers Garcia and Barbara who were on a plainclothes assignment to the burglary detail responded to Hamilton's call for assistance. The altter related his observation and gave a physical description of defendants to his fellow officers. The neighborhood in which defendants had been observed was residential and had suffered a high number of burglaries in recent months. At the time of Hamilton's observation, however, the police had no information that a specific burglary had recently occurred in that neighborhood.

On the basis of the information provided by Hamilton, Garcia and Barbara thereafter observed defendants and stopped them on the street. The officers separated the suspects, questioned them individually as to their reason for being in the area, and discovered that there were 'deviations' in the responses of the two defendants. One defendant indicated that they had walked to the neighborhood; the other related that they had come by car. One stated that he knew the name of a friend they had come to visit; the other professed ignorance of the name of the friend. Both defendants appeared extremely nervous and, prior to his apprehension, Timothy had removed the shirt which he had been wearing when first observed by Hamilton.

Based solely on the foregoing circumstances the officers placed defendants under arrest and advised them of their rights as prescribed in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. Mark waived his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney. Timothy at first appeared to waive his right to remain silent. However, immediately thereafter when asked by Barbara if there was anything he wanted to say, 'Timothy stated: 'I don't know anything. I won't say anything.' 3

Barbara testified to the events as follows: 'I returned from the vehicle, and he (Mark) stated--I told him that there was a lot of burglaries in the area; that I was taking him to jail for burglary and investigation down at the station. I asked him if there was anything he wanted to tell me before he went to the station. He stated with tears in his eyes that (he had) broken into a house, a green house down the street, with his brother Tim who boosted him through the window and his brother had let him in the side door, and they were frightened off because someone came home.' During the foregoing conversation Mark was seated in the patrol car.

Within an hour of their arrests defendants were interrogated at the police station. Mark repeated his admission and again incriminated his brother. The police purported to again admonish Timothy in the manner required by Miranda and informed him that Mark had admitted the burglary and had implicated his brother. Timothy then admitted that he had committed a burglary.

It is clear that the foregoing circumstances known to the officers before they arrested defendants fail to establish probable cause to arrest either defendant for any crime. 4 'Cause for arrest exists when the facts known to the arresting officer 'would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person is guilty of a crime.' (Citations).' (People v. Harris (1975) 15 Cal.3d 384, 389, 124 Cal.Rptr. 536, 539, 540 P.2d 632, 635.) The arresting officers in the instant case had no reason to believe that any crime had been recently committed in the neighborhood. They possessed only general information that the neighborhood had been experiencing a high number of burglaries. Although they were entitled to rely on information relayed to them by Hamilton (People v. Ross (1967) 67 Cal.2d 64, 70, 60 Cal.Rptr. 254, 429 P.2d 606; People v. Braun (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 949, 967, 106 Cal.Rptr. 56), were aware that Timothy had removed his shirt since he was first observed by that officer, and had noted inconsistencies and nervousness in the responses of defendants to police questioning, the officers had no sufficient basis in support of a belief that a crime had been committed or that defendants were engaged in criminal conduct. The illegality of the arrests is thus manifest.

Notwithstanding the question of the legality of their arrests and the consequences which flowed therefrom, each defendant's guilty plea operated to remove such issues from consideration as a plea of guilty admits all matters essential to the conviction. (See People v. Massey (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 777, 780, 130 Cal.Rptr. 581.) Issues cognizable on an appeal following a guilty plea are limited to issues based on 'reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings' resulting in the plea. (§ 1237.5; see also People v. Ribero (1971) 4 Cal.3d 55, 60--64, 92 Cal.Rptr. 692, 480 P.2d 308.) The issuance of a certificate of probable cause pursuant to section 1237.5 does not operate to expand the grounds upon which an appeal may be taken as that section relates only to the 'procedure in perfecting an appeal from a judgment based on a plea of guilty.' (Id., at p. 63, 92 Cal.Rptr. at p. 697, 480 P.2d at p. 313; see also People v. Castro (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 960, 965, 117 Cal.Rptr. 295.)

Given the accused's guilty plea, an extrajudicial statement relating to his guilt of a charged crime does not, by reason of a claim that it was involuntarily or improperly induced, raise an issue on appeal based on 'constitutional, jurisdictional or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings' resulting in the plea. 5 On the other hand, a claim that the Plea as distinguished from an extrajudicial statement was improperly induced would challenge the legality of the proceedings resulting in the plea and would thus be cognizable on an appeal pursuant to section 1237.5. Defendants in the instant case, accordingly, cannot raise on this appeal claims that their extrajudicial statements were involuntarily induced. They may, however, attack on this appeal the validity of their pleas on the ground that because it was beyond the power of the trial court to bargain with defendants to preserve for appellate purposes the issues of involuntariness, they were improperly induced to enter such pleas. (See People v. Ribero, supra, 4 Cal.3d 55, 63, 92 Cal.Rptr. 692, 480 P.2d 308; People v. Rose (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 171, 172, 339 P.2d 954.) We conclude that the judgments must be reversed because defendants' pleas were induced by misrepresentations of a fundamental nature. 6 (See Brady v. United States (1970) 397 U.S. 742, 755, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747.)

Because the question of the bearing of defendants' illegal arrests on the admissibility of their extrajudicial statements will likely be presented again should defendants be retried, we deem it appropriate to express our views thereon. In Brown v. Illinois, supra, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416, the accused after being arrested without probable cause and receiving the admonitions required by Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 made a confession. The United States Supreme Court, construing its holdings in Wong Sun v. United States, supra, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441, reasoned that the extrajudicial statements, unless demonstrated by the prosecution to be otherwise, were the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
498 cases
  • De Lancie v. Superior Court of State of Cal., San Mateo County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 5, 1979
    ...v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3d 731, 764-765, 117 Cal.Rptr. 393, 528 P.2d 1 (overruled on other grounds, People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896, fn. 5, 135 Cal.Rptr. 786, 558 P.2d 872); North v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3d 301, 308-309, 104 Cal.Rptr. 833, 502 P.2d 1305; Halpin v. Superior......
  • People v. Pettingill
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 9, 1978
    ...guilty pleas would have foreclosed appellate review of the admissibility of his confession. (People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 895-896, 135 Cal.Rptr. 786, 558 P.2d 872.)2 The officer testified at the preliminary hearing that he read defendant these rights from a card which contained ......
  • People v. Cooks
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 25, 1983
    ...People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3d 731, 761, 117 Cal.Rptr. 393, 528 P.2d 1, overruled on another point in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896, fn. 5, 135 Cal.Rptr. 786, 558 P.2d 872), corroborated in detail the information pertaining to the crimes described by Harris. Although corrobo......
  • Donaldson v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • November 21, 1983
    ...(1972) 8 Cal.3d 301, 308-309, 104 Cal.Rptr. 833, 502 P.2d 1305.)* Overruled on other grounds in People v. De Vaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896, 135 Cal.Rptr. 786, 558 P.2d 872, footnote 5.4 Until amended in 1968, Penal Code section 2600--the so-called "civil death" statute--contained languag......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...§3.1.1(3)(d) People v. Deutsch, 44 Cal. App. 4th 1224, 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (1st Dist. 1996)—Ch. 5-A, §2.2.1(1)(b)[2] People v. Devaughn, 18 Cal. 3d 889, 135 Cal. Rptr. 786, 558 P.2d 872 (1977)—Ch. 4-C, §9.2.2(2)(b) People v. Dial, 123 Cal. App. 4th 1116, 20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 573 (3d Dist. 2004......
  • Chapter 4 - §9. Spousal privileges
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 4 Statutory Limits on Particular Evidence
    • Invalid date
    ...of privacy in conversation with wife in jail visiting room over intercom), overruled on other grounds, People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889; People v. Von Villas (2d Dist.1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 175, 221 (pretrial detainee had no expectation of privacy in conversation with wife in jail visi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT