People v. Langley, Cr. 7387

• Decision Date: 06 August 1974
• Docket Number: Cr. 7387
• Citation: 116 Cal.Rptr. 80,41 Cal.App.3d 339
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Sharon LANGLEY, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 80

116 Cal.Rptr. 80

41 Cal.App.3d 339

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Sharon LANGLEY, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 7387.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Aug. 6, 1974.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., by Roger Venturi, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, for plaintiff-respondent.

Jack V. James, West Sacramento, for defendant-appellant.

REGAN, Associate Justice.

After trial by jury, defendant was convicted of two counts of unlawful sale of heroin (Health & Saf.Code, § 11352) and one count of unlawful possession of a controlled substance (heroin) for sale (Health & Saf.Code, § 11351). She appeals from the judgment of convictions.

Defendant filed her opening brief on March 26, 1974. On that same date she also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. On April 12, 1974, we issued an order to show cause and consolidated this matter with the appeal. (See In re Hwamei (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 554, 556--557, 112 Cal.Rptr. 464.) In the petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner cites numerous examples of alleged inadequacy of counsel. She also makes this contention in her opening brief. We shall combine all of these allegations and treat them together after first disposing of defendant's other contentions on appeal.

FACTS

Michael Galardi (alias Todd) was an admitted user and seller of heroin in Shasta County prior to trying to overcome his habit through a methadone treatment program. During May of 1973, local law enforcement officers approached Todd and he agreed to act as an undercover agent. He was placed under the direct supervision of Sergeant Brewer of the Shasta County Sheriff's Office and was paid approximately $125 per week for the three months he worked in this capacity.

During the time Todd worked for the law enforcement agency, Brewer was in constant contact with him and Todd claimed that throughout this period he was not using heroin. Brewer testified that he observed no physical symptoms of heroin use in Todd.

Todd had known the defendant Sharon Langley for about 18 months and had been a regular visitor in her house. On July 3, 1973, Todd telephoned defendant and arranged to buy several 'quarter T's' of heroin. Todd informed Sergeant Brewer of this arrangement, whereupon Brewer and Officer Jackson met Todd and his person and car were thoroughly searched and he was given $60. The two officers followed Todd to defendant's house keeping him under constant surveillance. Upon entering defendant's house, Todd noticed that a number of people were there, including one Jim Hash who was suffering withdrawal symptoms. Todd gave defendant the money and she reached into the pocket of the robe she was wearing, took out a bobby pin box, in which there were probably 10 or 12 spoons of heroin, and handed him three paper packets of heroin. As Todd attempted to leave, Hash begged him for some of the heroin, saying he would pay it back to Todd the next day. Todd was nervous and afraid it might endanger his cover if he refused so he gave Hash one packet, left the house and returned to meet Sergeant Brewer and Officer Jackson. He turned over the two remaining packets of heroin and another search of Todd and his car was conducted by the officers.

Since Todd was a regular visitor at defendant's house, he learned that she was dealing in 'spoons.' On July 14, 1973, Todd telephoned defendant and arranged to buy a spoon that afternoon. Todd informed Sergeant Brewer and then met the same officers again and they thoroughly searched Todd's person and his car. Todd was again supplied with cash for the buy, and this time a remote transmitter was secreted on his person. The officers again kept him under surveillance as he proceeded to defendant's house and watched as he disappeared through the door. The house was full of people. Todd exchanged the money given him for a balloon containing one teaspoon of heroin which defendant took from her pocket. Todd was inside the house about two minutes.

A transcript of the recorded conversation revealed that Todd asked if it had been cut and a female voice said, 'No. I am just separating it.' The same voice assured him it was good stuff.

Todd departed, met the officers, turned over the heroin to them, and was again subjected to a search.

On one of his visits to defendant's house, Todd heard defendant and Dempsey Heffley talking about defendant's stash of narcotics. Defendant said she kept her 'outfits' and the heroin over the backyard fence in some weeds covered by a board.

On August 13, 1973, Todd helped arrange a meeting between defendant and a known heroin supplier, George Morgan. Defendant and Morgan discussed the quality of the heroin. They decided that the middleman, Mike Mitchell, was cutting the heroin short, and Morgan agreed to deal directly with defendant.

On August 31, 1973, Sergeant Brewer executed an arrest warrant for defendant and a search warrant for her house. Between 7 and 8 a.m., uniformed Officers Wort and Cilenti approached defendant's house, went directly to the front door and knocked. Terri Wilson came to the door, pulled the drapes aside and looked out. Wort asked to speak to defendant and stated that they had a message for her. Terri said, 'Just a minute,' and dropped the drapes back into place. Wort then shouted that he was a police officer, that he had a search warrant and to open the door. Following his announcement he heard the shuffling sounds of feet moving inside the house. Wort waited a few seconds and again said 'Open the door.' He waited about an equal length of time and again demanded that they open the door or they would kick it in. There being no response from the occupants, the officers kicked in the door and entered the house. There were several people in the house, including the defendant.

During the search of the backyard fence area, officers discovered, under a board a few inches beyond defendant's fence in a neighbor's yard, a plastic container with five rubber balloons containing heroin, a plastic bag containing a Tiparillo cigar box, a small metal can and a hypodermic syringe. Heroin was found in two folded paper bindles inside the metal can. Another five balloons also contained heroin. The amounts involved and the packaging indicated that it was being held for sale.

Four paper squares similar to those used to wrap the heroin were found on the bookcase in defendant's living room. Defendant had at least three fresh hypodermic marks on her lower, right arm. Following her arrest defendant wrote something on a piece of paper, handed it to a Lola May Bessey and told her to call that person. It was George Morgan's telephone number. Defendant subsequently complained about suffering withdrawal symptoms and had to be taken to a hospital for treatment.

The main thrust of the defense was the impeachment of the undercover agent Todd. The defense attempted to show that Todd, during the period in question, was a user and pusher of heroin, that the stash behind defendant's house in actuality belonged to Todd, and that Todd was a liar. Defendant, and several of her good friends (many of whom had stayed at her house at one time or another), gave testimony to this effect. Defendant, and some of these same witnesses, denied that she was selling or using heroin. There was also testimony from defendant's parole officer that he supervised her during this time, and he observed no obvious signs that she had been using narcotics.

On rebuttal, the prosecution called two of defendant's neighbors who testified that there was a lot of traffic in and around defendant's house. People would arrive in cars, enter defendant's house, stay for a short time, and then depart. Sergeant Brewer again gave his opinion that Todd had not been using drugs.

Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. Her main contention is that Todd was a liar and thus incapable of belief.

The general principles for appellate review in a criminal case are well established: 'The applicable rules for appellate review in a criminal case are clear. The function of an appellate court begins and ends with a determination of whether there is substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the judgment. (Citation.) The evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, and the court must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. (Citations.) Where the circumstances reasonably justify the conclusion of the trier of fact, the opinion of the reviewing court that circumstances may also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant reversal of the judgment. (Citations.)' (People v. Rupert (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 961, 969--970, 98 Cal.Rptr. 203, 207.)

Without reciting the evidence in detail, we note that here there were two closely supervised and controlled buys of heroin by Todd from defendant. This alone is sufficient to support the two convictions for sale. (People v. Hawkins (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 151, 154--155, 32 Cal.Rptr. 392.) The testimony relied upon by the jury certainly cannot be deemed inherently improbable. (See, People v. Bryant (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 528, 534--535 321 P.2d 45.) In addition, the quantity of heroin and type of packaging found alongside defendant's backyard fence indicated it was intended for sale and thus supports the third conviction, since it was in defendant's custody and control. (See, People v. White (1958) 50 Cal.2d 428, 431, 325 P.2d 985.)

Simply put, the jury here was faced with two conflicting versions. " Where (the) testimony is not inherently improbable it is the exclusive province of the jury to determine the truth of the matter in question." (People v. Bodkin (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 412, 415, 16 Cal.Rptr. 506, 507.) There is nothing 'inherently improbable' about Todd's testimony, and we find that there was substantial evidence to support the...