People v. Hood, Cr. 5822
| Decision Date | 08 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5822 |
| Citation | 309 P.2d 135,149 Cal.App.2d 836 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Edward HOOD, Defendant and Appellant. |
Francis Price, Jr., Santa Barbara, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Herschel Elkins, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and order of commitment made and entered in the superior court in and for the county of Santa Barbara on October 15, 1956.
In an information filed in Santa Barbara county defendant was charged with a violation of the provisions of section 12020 of the Penal Code, namely, the felonious possession of a 'billy club'. By stipulation the matter was presented to the trial court upon the transcript of the proceedings had in the preliminary hearing. The defendant consented to the stipulation and waived a jury trial and was found guilty as charged. He made an application for probation, but apparently later reconsidered and withdrew the application, and the court thereupon ordered the probation officer to make a pre-sentence report. The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for the time prescribed by law.
A resume of the facts is as follows: On August 17, 1956, Harry Hobson, a policeman of the Santa Barbara police force, was informed by a man named Pembleton that he had been the victim of a robbery and that the robber drove a "49 or '50 Chevy two-door dropped down in the back end'; that the robber was about five feet ten inches tall, weighed about 150 pounds, was dark complexioned and had dark curly hair. Pembleton told officer Hobson that the man, later identified by Pembleton, struck him, knocked him down, struck him several times while he was on the ground, and that while he was in the latter position he felt his wallet being pulled out of his pocket and that the robber then ran away.
The next day officer Hobson, in ordinary street clothes, saw the defendant through a porch screen at an address on Haley Street in Santa Barbara and asked him to come out. When the defendant complied with the request Hobson then identified himself as being from the police department and asked the defendant if he would go to the police station with him and 'be checked out on a robbery case'. The defendant stated that he would do so and Hobson asked him if he would drive his own car. Defendant stated that he had no driver's license, but that Hobson could drive defendant's car and that he would go with him. Hobson then drove the defendant's automobile with defendant riding therein to the police station.
At the police station parking lot Hobson asked the defendant if he could search defendant's car and defendant answered, 'Yes, go ahead.' Hobson opened the door on the driver's side of the automobile and upon looking under the front seat found a fourteen inch billy club with a wooden handle and a leather thong attached thereto, used for wrapping around the wrist. Hobson then asked defendant, 'What is this?' and defendant answered that it was a billy club and said further, 'I was hoping you wouldn't find that.' Hobson inquired as to how long it had been in the automobile and was told by the defendant, 'It's been in there about five months.' The defendant was then arrested. While at the police station parking lot, the defendant further said in reference to Pembleton, 'That's the man I hit.'
At the preliminary hearing the defendant was present when the officer testified and thereafter defendant took the witness stand himself and testified as to his name and date of birth and nothing else.
Defendant now contends that the finding of the billy club in his automobile was the result of an unlawful search and seizure and any evidence in reference thereto was inadmissible.
The question as to whether there was a consent given...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Grubb
...alone (People v. Anushevitz, supra, 183 Cal.App.2d 752, 6 Cal.Rptr. 785 (12-inch length of hose, weighted and taped); People v. Hood (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 836, 309 P.2d 135 (14-inch billy club); People v. Canales, supra, 12 Cal.App.2d 215, 55 P.2d 289 (14-inch club, taped, with nails driven......
-
Tompkins v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco
...were given to the police officers to conduct a search and to confirm that there were no narcotics on the premises. (People v. Hood, 149 Cal.App.2d 836, 839(2), 309 P.2d 135.) Since there was evidence that Nieman had given consent, and no conflicting evidence on this point, it may not be sai......
-
People v. Sanchez
...is under arrest. People v. King, 175 Cal.App.2d 386, 346 P.2d 235; People v. Michael, 45 Cal.2d 751, 290 P.2d 852; People v. Hood, 149 Cal.App.2d 836, 309 P.2d 135; People v. Martin, 45 Cal.2d 755, 290 P.2d 855. find nothing unreasonable about the officers' investigation of the hotel premis......
-
People v. Sanchez
...mean that the person so stopped is arrested. See People v. Michael, supra, 45 Cal.2d 751, 754, 290 P.2d 852; People v. Hood, 149 Cal.App.2d 836, 838-839, 309 Pac.2d 135; People v. Martin, 45 Cal.2d 755, 761 290 Pac.2d 855. * * * In other words, we believe that the federal agents under the c......