People v. Martinez
| Decision Date | 06 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6885 |
| Citation | 4 Cal.Rptr. 829,180 Cal.App.2d 690 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Faustino MARTINEZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
Faustino Martinez, appellant, in pro. per.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Marvin L. Part, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
In the jury trial, Faustino Martinez was found guilty of an offense of second degree burglary and he appeals. Martinez represented himself at the trial. He applied for appointment of counsel on the appeal. After reading the record we denied the application for the reason that the appeal has no semblance of merit and appointment of counsel would serve no useful purpose. Martinez has filed an opening and a closing brief which present every conceivable argument for a reversal.
The conviction was based upon evidence of the following facts. On March 24, 1959, a burglary was committed in the house of a Mrs. Margaret Aguilar. The property stolen included a television set, a hi-fi set with four gold-tipped legs and some clothes belonging to her brother, Raoul Morales. Morales testified that at about 2 p. m. he saw appellant walking toward his sister's house. Upon returning to the scene about half an hour later Morales saw appellant and another man standing beside a black Pontiac parked in front of the house. He heard appellant ask: 'What about the records?' The other man replied: 'We'll come back for them later.' Morales saw his sister's hi-fi set in the trunk of the car; he recognized it by the gold-tipped legs. A few days later, Morales identified appellant in a police line-up. Prior to the line-up, Sergeant Van Dahlen had the first of three conversations with Martinez. At that time appellant denied his guilt of burglary. When told that Morales had identified him, appellant admitted burglarizing the house and 'fencing' the stolen articles for narcotics. After being held to answer at the preliminary, appellant told Van Dahlen that he committed the burglary with one Morones, using the latter's black Pontiac automobile. Van Dahlen testified that all appellant's statements were free and voluntary. Appellant took the stand and gave an account of his whereabouts on March 24th; he denied being in the vicinity of Mrs. Aguilar's house and denied admitting his guilt to Sergeant Van Dahlen. On cross-examination he admitted having suffered two prior felony convictions, one of forgery and one of burglary.
Numerous points are advanced on the appeal. The first point requiring discussion is that the court lacked jurisdiction over the case for the reason that appellant was unlawfully arrested without a warrant. There is no basis for the contention. No evidence was received concerning the circumstances of the arrest and the People did not seek to introduce any evidence obtained by the arresting officers. Furthermore, even if the evidence had established an illegal arrest the court would not thereby have been deprived of jurisdiction over the proceedings. People v. Valenti, 49 Cal.2d 199, 316 P.2d 633.
The second point is that the court committed error in admitting in evidence a photograph of Martinez. The photograph was dated 1947 and bore an identification number and an inscription stating that it was an official record of the sheriff's department. The exhibit was received without objection. Appellant had been asked on cross-examination whether he usually wore glasses and he replied that he did, whereupon the deputy showed him the photograph, which depicted him without glasses. The use of the picture could have served no purpose unless it was to remind appellant that he had suffered two prior felony convictions, which he promptly admitted.
It is next contended that the court erred in receiving testimony of Van Dahlen that appellant admitted committing another burglary on March 24th. During cross-examination of Van Dahlen, Martinez asked whether the officer made any notes of their second conversation and at appellant's request the notes were produced. Van Dahlen was asked to explain the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dumas
...Jones, 205 Cal.App.2d 460, 468, 23 Cal.Rptr. 418; Bird v. Justice Court, 182 Cal.App.2d 674, 678, 6 Cal.Rptr. 502; People v. Martinez, 180 Cal.App.2d 690, 692, 4 Cal.Rptr. 829; Ringer v. Municipal Court, 175 Cal.App.2d 786, 788, 346 P.2d 881; People v. Stice, 161 Cal.App.2d 610, 613, 327 P.......
-
People v. McHenry
...made by appellant. A sufficient foundation was laid to show that the admissions of appellant were voluntary. (People v. Martinez, 180 Cal.App.2d 690, 4 Cal.Rptr. 829.) Appellant argues that any statements made prior to the giving of a polygraph examination were inadmissible and that the use......
-
People v. Stoliker
...People v. Sergent, 183 Cal.App.2d 342, 6 Cal.Rptr. 576, improper extradition which defendant termed 'kidnapping'; People v. Martinez, 180 Cal.App.2d 690, 692, 4 Cal.Rptr. 829, unlawful arrest; People v. Millwood, 150 Cal.App.2d 154, 156, 309 P.2d 495, 'kidnapping' from Nevada; see also 22 C......
-
People v. Cook
...and Ford had taken the stand and admitted his prior criminal record before the photograph reached the jury. In People v. Martinez (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 690, 692, 4 Cal.Rptr. 829, the court sanctioned the use of the accused's mug shot to impeach his testimony that he usually wore glasses (wh......