People v. Estany
| Decision Date | 10 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 8342 |
| Citation | 210 Cal.App.2d 609,26 Cal.Rptr. 757 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Humberto Hernandez ESTANY, Defendant and Appellant. |
Harry Weiss, Los Angeles, and Burton Marks, Beverly Hills, for defendant and appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Louis L. Selby, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
In an information filed by the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, defendant was charged with a violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code, possession of marijuana. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty. Trial was by the court, trial by jury having been duly waived by defendant personally and all counsel. Pursuant to stipulation of defendant and all counsel, the cause was submitted to the court on the testimony contained in the transcript of the proceedings had at the preliminary hearing and the evidence adduced at that hearing. The judge indicated for the record that he had read and considered the evidence produced at the preliminary hearing. No additional evidence was offered and the matter was submitted to the court for decision. Defendant was found guilty as charged, and a probation report was ordered. Probation was denied and defendant sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law.
On November 11, 1961, Donald R. Brewer, an agent of the State Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, assisted by three other law enforcement officers, staked out at 446 West 93rd Street where, according to information received by them, defendant resided and was in possession of marijuana. That afternoon they observed defendant come down the stairs of that address and walk along the driveway toward the street. It was observed that defendant was carrying a folded newspaper. As Agent Brewer approached, defendant apparently observed him and began to walk in a rapid manner toward the rear of the premises. Agent Brewer identified himself as a law enforcement officer and apprehended defendant. Brewer asked, 'What do you have there, marijuana?' Defendant responded by handing him the folded newspaper which covered three small paper sacks. Brewer inspected the sacks which were found to contain a green, leafy material resembling marijuana. He asked defendant if this was his marijuana, and defendant replied, 'Yes, that is my marijuana.' He was asked where he obtained it, and he answered that he had it all along--that he bought it in the market. He was then asked if he had been selling marijuana to which he replied, 'No, I just smoke it.'
Agent Brewer took defendant upstairs to his apartment and knocked at the door. Henry Perez opened the door and identified himself as defendant's roommate. He was advised that defendant was under arrest, and Agent Brewer asked if he could come in and look around. Perez opened the door, and Agent Brewer entered with defendant. Agent Brewer examined a suitcase which was found to contain some debris of a leafy material. Defendant admitted that the suitcase belonged to him.
Agent Brewer testified that all statements made to him by defendant at the time of arrest were free and voluntary. A forensic chemist testified that the green leafy substance contained in the three paper sacks as well as the debris found in the suitcase were, in his opinion, marijuana.
Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that he was denied due process of law in that the evidence upon which he was convicted was presented in a language that defendant could not understand and in the absence of an interpreter. Defendant states in his appeal brief that he cannot understand or speak English. He contends that the testimony given in English at the preliminary liminary hearing violated his right to be confronted by the witness against him.
It is unnecessary for us to discuss the nature of a defendant's right to have testimony interpreted to him (see 140 A.L.R. 766) since in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Carreon
...59 Cal.Rptr. 888, cert. den., Annett v. Califor nia (1968) 390 U.S. 1029, 88 S.Ct. 1421, 20 L.Ed.2d 287; People v. Estany (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 609, 611, 26 Cal.Rptr. 757; In re Muraviov (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 604, 606, 13 Cal.Rptr. 466; and People v. Hernandez (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 398, 400......
-
People v. Loeun, H012038
...of an interpreter necessary. (People v. Carreon (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 559, 566-567, 198 Cal.Rptr. 843; see People v. Estany (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 609, 611, 26 Cal.Rptr. 757.) Factors relevant to this determination include the defendant's request for an interpreter, whether one has previousl......
-
State v. Saldana
...not prejudiced in the preparation of his case by the absence of an interpreter at the preliminary hearing. See, People v. Estany, 210 Cal.App.2d 609, 26 Cal.Rptr. 757 (1962). Defendant seeks to bolster the claimed denial of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel bec......
-
People v. Haydarov
...previous appointment is merely a factor to be considered. (In re Raymundo B., supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1454-1456; People v. Estany (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 609, 611-612.) That Haydarov was provided interpreters throughout the proceedings, until he opted to dispense with Ganjineh's services......