People v. Fields

• Decision Date: 23 August 1984
• Docket Number: Cr. 15693,D000328
• Citation: 205 Cal.Rptr. 888,159 Cal.App.3d 555
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Sentarian FIELDS, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 888

205 Cal.Rptr. 888

159 Cal.App.3d 555

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Sentarian FIELDS, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 15693, D000328.

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

Aug. 23, 1984.

As Modified Sept. 6, 1984.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Frederick R. Millar, Jr., and Jay M. Bloom, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

COLOGNE, Acting Presiding Justice.

Sentarian Fields appeals convictions by his plea of guilty to charges of forcible oral copulation (PEN.CODE, § 288A¹, subd. (c)) and rape (§ 261), and his sentence.

On August 31, 1982, while Ms. T. was watching television, Fields silently entered her condominium through a window and hid in the hallway near the bedroom. About 11:30 p.m., as Ms. T. was walking toward her bedroom, Fields grabbed her, blindfolded her and told her not to scream. She struggled, but stopped when he told her he had a knife. He then tied her hands, retied the blindfold and gagged her. He led her into the bedroom and, after a discussion of whether a man was coming, put a knife to her throat. He removed the gag from her mouth for awhile and asked if she had ever made love to a black man. He also told her he had been in jail since he was 20 for killing a man. ²

Over approximately the next hour and a half, Fields proceeded to fondle her, force her to orally copulate him, orally copulated her, raped and sodomized her. He then took some money from her purse and fled. Ms. T. then went to her neighbor's and called the police.

The police arrived at about 1 a.m. Ms. T. described her attacker as a slender, thin black male, young and possibly wearing jogging or warm-up clothes. At the scene, the police found Fields' fingerprints and a distinctively marked sock left by the attacker. Seven latent prints, later identified as those belonging to Fields, were taken: two from the phone, one from the exterior window, one from the window sill, one from the deadbolt latch and two from the top of the latch.

At about 7 a.m., Officer Steven Bellizzi was on patrol in the vicinity. He had heard the radio report of the crime and the general description of the attacker. He saw a black male wearing jogging or sweat pants and a light blue jacket walking down the street about a block and a half from the scene of the crime. He noted the person appeared startled by the officer, showed a look of fear in his eyes and looked away. The officer thought Fields matched the description of the rape suspect so he radioed for additional information and a backup unit. Bellizzi then stopped Fields. He told Fields a rape had occurred in the neighborhood and that he matched the description of the person involved. Bellizzi patted him down for weapons. He did not find any weapons but did note Fields was wearing several shirts. Fields said he had just run up a hill, but Bellizzi did not believe him as Fields did not appear winded or perspiring nor did he have a rapid pulse. Fields said he was supposed to be at Sweetwater High School at 7:30, but the officer testified he intended to detain Fields until the investigating officers arrived. Bellizzi heard over the radio the officers had just left the scene and would be there shortly.

Within five minutes after Fields' stop, the officers investigating the rape, having heard Bellizzi's broadcast of the stop, arrived at the place where Fields was being detained. They asked to see Fields' socks. He had two on one foot and only one on the other. They discovered one of the socks he was wearing matched the one they had found at the scene. It had a blue stripe. At that point, they arrested him.

The total time which elapsed between the stop and the arrest was five minutes.

After Fields was transported to jail, booked and given his Miranda warning, he waived the rights and made a full confession admitting all the elements of the crimes of which he was charged. ³ He was accused by information of two counts of forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)), one count of sodomy (§ 286, subd. (c)), one count of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (2)) and one count of robbery (§ 211). Burglary of a residence (§ 459) was alleged in separate counts, one with intent to commit theft and one with intent to commit rape. A knife use allegation was added to the sex offenses (§ 12022.3), as well as to the burglary and robbery charges (§ 12022, subd. (b)). The information was later amended to combine the burglary counts alleging both intents and to add a third count of oral copulation.

Fields moved to suppress evidence under section 1538.5 and to dismiss the information under section 995. Both motions were denied.

Fields then entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of forcible oral copulation and one count of rape, each with a knife use allegation. He entered the plea pursuant to People v. West, 3 Cal.3d 595, 91 Cal.Rptr. 385, 477 P.2d 409, without personally admitting the factual basis. The remaining counts were dismissed as part of the bargain.

Since Fields was only 17 years old at the time of the offense, he was committed to the California Youth Authority (CYA) for an evaluation and study concerning his amenability to treatment by the CYA. The trial court, after reading the CYA report, the probation reports and hearing testimony by a retired intake and court liaison supervisor for the CYA, the victim and Fields, sentenced Fields to 22 years in state prison: 8 years (the upper term) on the forcible oral copulation count with a 3-year enhancement for using a knife and 8 years (the upper term) for the forcible rape with a 3-year enhancement for using a knife.

On appeal, Fields contends his detention was illegal, and the court erred in not giving sufficient weight to the CYA's finding of amenability, in using the same facts to enhance both counts, in failing to exercise its discretion to sentence under section 1170.1 rather than section 667.6, subdivision (c), and in imposing two knife use enhancements.

I

Fields first contends his detention was unlawful.

A temporary detention for questioning or investigation is justified when the circumstances known or apparent to an officer include specific and articulable facts which cause the officer to suspect (1) some activity relating to crime has taken place or is occurring or is about to occur, and (2) the person the officer intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity (People v. Aldridge, 35 Cal.3d 473, 478, 198 Cal.Rptr. 538, 674 P.2d 240). An officer's mere curiosity or hunch, or a rumor is not sufficient to justify a detention (In re Tony C., 21 Cal.3d 888, 893, 148 Cal.Rptr. 366, 582 P.2d 957). The officer's suspicions must be objectively reasonable so if a reasonable officer were in a similar situation, then that officer would suspect the same criminal activity and the same criminal involvement by the person in question (People v. Loewen, 35 Cal.3d 117, 123, 196 Cal.Rptr. 846, 672 P.2d 436).

The good faith suspicion which warrants an officer's detention of a person for investigative reasons is necessarily of a lesser standard than that required to effect arrest (People v. Flores, 12 Cal.3d 85, 91, 115 Cal.Rptr. 225, 524 P.2d 353). Where there is a rational belief of criminal activity with which the suspect is connected, a detention for reasonable investigative procedures infringes no constitutional restraint (ibid.).

When the reasonableness of a detention is based upon a resolution of conflicting facts, the reviewing court must accept the factual findings of the trial court if supported by substantial evidence in making its determination whether the detention was lawful (see People v. Aldridge, supra, 35 Cal.3d 473, 477, 198 Cal.Rptr. 538, 674 P.2d 240). The trial court's factual determination will not be reweighed on appeal (People v. Flores, supra, 12 Cal.3d 85, 92, 115 Cal.Rptr. 225, 524 P.2d 353).

Fields argues the radio broadcast description, "tall, thin, black male, about 25 years old, possibly wearing jogging clothes," was too general to justify stopping him and, moreover, there was insufficient evidence to support the finding the victim described him as wearing jogging clothes.

First, we discuss whether there was sufficient evidence to conclude the victim said Fields was wearing jogging clothes. At the preliminary hearing, the victim testified one of the officers asked her what her attacker wore, but she could not recall what she answered. Officer Benito Franco, who interviewed the victim shortly after the attack, remembered she said something about the suspect's clothes but he also could not recall her answer. The communications officer testified she received the description from Officer Franco that the suspect was a black male, thin, armed with a knife, possibly wearing jogging clothes, about 25 years old and on foot in the area. She wrote down the description for the radio dispatcher but did not retain the note she had written. Finally, another officer also testified Officer Franco and another officer at about 1 a.m. told him the suspect was wearing either warm-ups or jogging clothes.

This evidence supports one of two inferences--either the victim told Officer Franco or another officer her attacker was probably wearing warm-ups or jogging clothes or, as Fields urges, the officers made up this part of the description out of whole cloth. Since the trial court believed the former inference after listening to the witnesses and judging their credibility, and since there is substantial evidence to support this inference, we are bound by it on appeal (see People v. Lawler, 9 Cal.3d 156, 160, 107 Cal.Rptr. 13, 507 P.2d 621).

Second, we consider whether the detention was reasonable. Officer Bellizzi heard the broadcast description of the rape suspect. He was informed by radio a crime had been committed.

The description of the assailant was more than a general description; it provided several unique distinguishing features--sex, height, race, age and attire. Compare...