People v. Luckman
| Decision Date | 21 December 1961 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 7609 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Alan Benjamin LUCKMAN, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Don G. Kircher, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Alan Benjamin Luckman, in pro. per.
A jury returned a verdict of guilty against defendant for grand theft in violation of Penal Code section 487, subd. 1. A prior conviction of grand theft was alleged in the information and the jury found the prior conviction as alleged was true. Defendant appeared in propria persona. Probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law. Defendant's motion for a new trial was also denied. Defendant appeals in propria persona from the judgment of conviction and the order denying the motion for a new trial.
Defendant made a motion for appointment of counsel on appeal in Division 2 of the Second Appellate District of this court, to which consideration of this appeal had originally been assigned, on May 12, 1961. On that date the court made the following order:
Thereafter, on the 26th day of September, 1961, the appeal of this case was transferred to this division. We have determined that it would be neither advantageous to defendant nor helpful to this court to have counsel appointed, in view of consideration given defendant's motion by Division 2 of this court and our own independent investigation of the record, which also led us to the same conclusion.
On September 24, 1960, a 1959 15-foot Corvette trailer of the approximate value of $950, owned by William W. Cheney, was parked on service station property at 7600 Winnetka Avenue, Los Angeles, California. The trailer was for rent. It was completely locked and had a sign in the window showing Mr. Cheney's phone number. At about 7:30 p. m., September 26, 1960, Mr. Cheney discovered the trailer was missing. He testified no one had permission to move the trailer and that he reported the loss to police.
At about 6:45 a. m. on September 29, 1960, Police Officers Baker and Parker observed the trailer parked on private property at 6852 Amigo Street in Canoga Park. The officers had received a report in the regular course of police business of the theft of a 1959 Corvette house trailer. Mr. Cheney's report stated that the serial number of the trailer was impressed on the tongue of the trailer. The officers entered on the property and found that the tongue of the trailer was covered with a thick coat of aluminum-like substance. Officer Baker pried off the substance revealing the same number submitted by Mr. Cheney in his report to the police. Other areas used for identifying the trailer were covered by aluminum paint. The license plate on the vehicle was not the same as that on the trailer reported missing.
The officers observed defendant in the trailer and in response to Officer Parker's knock defendant came to the door. He told the officers that it was his trailer and that he had proof of ownership. He presented a bill of sale and said he had been living in this trailer for about two years and that part of the time he had lived in Colorado. The bill of sale indicated the trailer had been manufactured in 1957. Officer Baker asked, 'Well, just when in 1957 did you buy this trailer?' Defendant answered, 'Somewhere around September.' Officer Baker replied that it seemed odd that defendant had the trailer in 1957 when it had not been manufactured until 1959. Defendant was placed under arrest.
Officer Baker then searched defendant's 1952 Buick which was parked directly behind the trailer. In the trunk he discovered a tube of liquid solder, a can of aluminum paint and a brush. The auto and trailer were then impounded.
Mr. Cheney checked the serial numbers, found his registration slip inside the trailer and observed the names on the trailer were painted out with 'silver' paint, and the identification tags were stripped.
Later the same morning at the West Valley Police Station, defendant stated to Officer Webb that on the weekend before defendant had been shopping at a market in Reseda. He stated that two men came up to him and asked if he wanted to buy a house trailer. He told them that he did not have the money but that he would like to have one because he was living in his car. Defendant stated the men told him he wouldn't need much money. They then took him to White Oak and Sherman Way where he saw the house trailer in question. Defendant stated that he purchased the trailer for twenty-five dollars cash and some clothing. The men gave him a bill of sale for the trailer. When asked how he explained the fact that the bill of sale was made October 27, 1957, for $775.00, when the trailer was stolen the week before, defendant stated that he bought it for $25.00 and some clothing the previous week, and that 'Well, there were some mistakes made on the bill of sale.'
Defendant contends his conviction was based upon illegally obtained evidence. This contention is without merit. The officers received information in the ordinary course of police business that a trailer had been stolen. Approximately three days after the theft the officers noticed a trailer (the same size, make and description as the one described as having been stolen), parked in a private lot. The officers entered the lot, which was near where the theft had occurred, and found that the areas of possible identification had apparently been covered with an aluminum-like substance. When part of this substance was pried from the tongue of the trailer, the serial number underneath was found to be identical to that in the police report.
The legality of an arrest does not determine the lawfulness of a search incident thereto. (People v. Brown, 45 Cal.2d 640, 643, 290 P.2d 528.) The reasonableness of a search is not to be justified by what the search turns up but by appearances to the searcher at the time of his action. So long as the officer reasonably evaluates these appearances and acts accordingly the rights of the accused are adequately safeguarded. (People v. Bly, 191 A.C.A. 344, 348, 12 Cal.Rptr. 542. Police officers are duty bound to prevent the commission of crime and to assist in its detection. Removal of the substance from the tongue of the trailer was reasonable under the circumstances. (People v. West, 144 Cal.App.2d 214, 221, 300 P.2d 729.)
Penal Code section 836 states: 'A peace officer may make an arrest * * * without a warrant * * * 3 Whenever he has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony, whether or not a felony has in fact been committed.' Reasonable cause is such a state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest, strong suspicion, that the person in question is guilty of a crime. In considering the question of reasonable cause for the officer to act, the court looks only to the facts and circumstances presented to the officer at the time he was required to act. (People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407, 412, 414, 2...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Spencer
...34 Cal.2d 196, 203(2), 208 P.2d 974; People v. Childs (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 600, 603(1), 20 Cal.Rptr. 109; People v. Luckman (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 347, 352(8), 18 Cal.Rptr. 167.) Here there was evidence (1) that defendant was the only person seen in or about Heathman's cab; (2) that immedia......
-
People v. Propp
...case, and may state his views as to what the evidence shows as long as he stays within reasonable limits" (People v. Luckman (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 347, 353, 18 Cal.Rptr. 167, 170), and the admonishing of the court, there was no prejudicial action Defendants cite three statements made by the......
-
Ferganchick v. United States
...would believe that the brothers had committed a felony. People v. Murphy, 1959, 173 Cal.App.2d 367, 343 P.2d 273; People v. Luckman, 1961, 198 Cal.App.2d 347, 18 Cal.Rptr. 167. Reese surely had sufficient information to warrant such a belief. Nor is the fact that his information was hearsay......
- Heves v. Kershaw