People v. Juvera

• Decision Date: 28 March 1963
• Docket Number: Cr. 4171
• Citation: 214 Cal.App.2d 569,29 Cal.Rptr. 653
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Gilbert M. JUVERA and Harry Boland Truitt, Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 653

29 Cal.Rptr. 653

214 Cal.App.2d 569

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Gilbert M. JUVERA and Harry Boland Truitt, Defendants and Appellants.

Cr. 4171.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California.

March 28, 1963.

Hearing Denied May 22, 1963.

Charles C. Moore, San Francisco, for appellant (under appointment of the District Court of Appeal)

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., John S. McInerny, Eric Collins, Deputies Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.

SALSMAN, Justice.

Gilbert M. Juvera and Harry Boland Truitt were indicted for an alleged violation of Health and Safety Code sections 11500 (possession of heroin) and 11530 (possession of marijuana). Three prior felonies were also charged against Juvera, and two against Truitt. Jury trial was waived, and by stipulation the case was submitted to the court upon the transcript of testimony taken before the grand jury. Both defendants were found guilty of possession of heroin. Juvera was sentenced to prison. Truitt, having been medically examined, was ordered committed to the California Rehabilitation Center, pursuant to Penal Code section 6451. Both defendants appeal.

The transcript of the testimony taken before the grand jury reveals that at about 1 a. m., September 24, 1961, the San Francisco Police Department received information that a narcotics party was in progress in room 214 at the Royan Hotel, 405 Valencia Street. Inspectors Dyer and Minkel went to the hotel and proceeded to room 214. There they met the informant, a Mr. Tracey, a guest at the hotel, who further identified himself as a member of the United States Navy. He told the officers he had overheard the occupants of room 214 discuss giving each other 'fixes'. As the officers stood outside the door they could hear a man groaning in the room. The officers rapped on the door; the door was opened and the officers saw a man lying face down on the floor, arms and legs spread out, and clothes in disarray. The man was breathing heavily, groaning and appeared unconscious. Inspector Dyer, an experienced police officer, with more than 12 years of service, was familiar with the paraphernalia used by addicts, and had seen many individuals who were subject to narcotic addiction. He testified that in his opinion, the person on the floor was either drunk, sick or under the influence of narcotics. The officers identified themselves and walked into the room. At the time the officers entered, the defendant Truitt was near a window which opened out onto an alley. Truitt was closing the window. As the two officers stood in the room they saw a spoon on a dresser. It contained a residue which, from their observation and experience they believed to be narcotics. The officers questioned defendant Juvera about the spoon, and Juvera denied knowledge of its presence. Inspector Minkel left the room to search the alley below the window which Truitt had closed as the officers entered the room. Below the window Inspector Minkel found a large bag and a small bag. One bag contained a paper on which a palm print, later identified as that of Juvera, was discovered. Both bags were brought to room 214, and after examination, substances were found which the officers believed to be narcotics. The officers then searched the room, and found several 'bindles' which appeared to contain narcotics. They then arrested Juvera and Truitt, and took the unconscious man to the hospital. The various substances found in the bags recovered from the alley, and the contents of the 'bindles' found in the room were later determined to be marijuana and heroin.

The People first object that no appeal by defendant Truitt is before the court, because he has not made any motion for a new trial and no judgment has been pronounced against him upon his conviction (Penal Code section 1237). The trial court, however, instituted proceedings under Penal Code section 6451, and after medical examination found this defendant to be a narcotic addict, or in imminent danger of becoming addicted to narcotics, and ordered that he be committed to the Director of Corrections pursuant to section 6451 of the Penal Code. This order is appealable. (See In re De La O, 59 A.C. 140, 168, 28 Cal.Rptr. 489, 378 P.2d 793; People v. Gross, 44 Cal.2d 859, 860, 285 P.2d 630, and cases cited.) Defendant Truitt's notice of appeal stated: 'I was convicted of 11500 * * * and sentenced to the Dept. of Corrections. * * * I wish to appeal my case.' He does not state that his appeal is from the order of commitment pursuant to Penal Code section 6451. Nevertheless, a notice of appeal must be construed liberally in favor of its sufficiency (Rule 31, Cal.Rules of Court) and we therefore consider Truitt's appeal as an appeal from the court's order of commitment pursuant to Penal Code section 6451. Defendant Juvera has properly appealed from the judgment of conviction.

The defendants in a common brief state two grounds for their appeal: first, that the evidence against them was illegally obtained, hence inadmissible and not to be considered by the court in making its decision, and second, assuming the evidence to have been legally obtained, it is insufficient to support the judgment of conviction. We find no merit in either ground of appeal.

When the defendant Juvera opened the door of the room the officers could see that a person in the room was in distress and in need of aid. Groans were heard by the officers even before the door was opened. When the door was opened the officers properly identified themselves and entered without objection. Before entry, upon questioning, Juvera gave evasive answers concerning the condition of the man on the floor....