People v. Luna, Cr. 2764

Decision Date25 November 1957
Docket NumberCr. 2764
Citation318 P.2d 116,155 Cal.App.2d 493
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard LUNA, Defendant and Appellant.

Milton L. Baldwin, Sacramento, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

VAN DYKE, Presiding Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of possession of heroin in violation of Section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

Upon appellant's request for counsel to aid him in his appeal, this court appointed Milton L. Baldwin, Esquire, a member of the local bar to represent him. Mr. Baldwin has advised the court that after a careful study of the record he is of the opinion there is no ground for appeal.

Since the record disclosed a search and seizure of evidence used at the trial without the issuance of a search warrant, Mr. Baldwin states that he particularly investigated the possibility that it could be meritoriously contended appellant's conviction was so far based upon evidence illegally obtained as to warrant reversal. He has further stated that after such study of the record and of applicable decisions he has concluded there would be no merit in that contention. This court has made an independent study of the record and has come to the conclusion that there is no merit in this appeal.

Capsules of heroin and other incriminating evidence were introduced into evidence over the objection that they had been obtained by unalwful search and seizure. The following showing was then made as justifying the conduct of the arresting officers. Inspector House, then acting supervising inspector of the State Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, knew appellant to be a drug addict and he had advised that appellant had, in the past, received narcotics through one Contreras. The night before appellant's arrest, Inspector House received information to the effect that appellant had obtained a large supply of narcotics. Inspector House took no action at that time. On the following morning however, a reliable informant telephoned him stating that the informant had just purchased a capsule of heroin from appellant in appellant's apartment. Inspector House immediately sent three officers to the apartment with instructions to place appellant and Contreras also under arrest. The officer arrested Contreras on the street. They knocked on the door of appellant's apartment, but there was no response. The officers then telephoned Inspector House asking further directions, and were told to enter the apartment. This they did by forcing the back door. Inside the apartment the officers found the heroin,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • People v. Marshall
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 16 Julio 1968
    ...States, supra, quoting Anello v. United States (1925) 269 U.S. 20, 33, 46 S.Ct. 4, 70 L.Ed. 145.)3 To the extent that People v. Luna (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 493, 318 P.2d 116; People v. Williams (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 29, 11 Cal.Rptr. 43; People v. Vice (1956) 147 Cal.App.2d 269, 305 P.2d 270,......
  • People v. Wozniak
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 23 Junio 1965
    ...here as it is well settled that if the circumstances justify an arrest the search may precede the arrest.) (People v. Luna (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 493, 495, 318 P.2d 116.) Officer Sikara knew that a felony had been committed, that the victims' hotel room had been entered and certain described......
  • People v. Ambrose
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 5 Febrero 1962
    ...v. Simmon, 45 Cal.2d 645, 290 P.2d 531.) 'The fact that the search(es) preceded the arrest is of no consequence. (People v. Luna, 155 Cal.App.2d 493, 494-495, 318 P.2d 116.)' (People v. Williams, 189 Cal.App.2d 29, 11 Cal.Rptr. 43, 48.) '* * * it is immaterial that the seizure of the paraph......
  • People v. Stoner
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 26 Junio 1962
    ...was arrested approximately thirty-six hours after the search took place. These arguments are not persuasive. In People v. Luna, 155 Cal.App.2d 493, 318 P.2d 116, officers received information from an informant that he had just purchased narcotics from the defendant in the latter's apartment......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT