People v. Merino
| Decision Date | 10 June 1957 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5752 |
| Citation | 151 Cal.App.2d 594,312 P.2d 48 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Manuel Reyes MERINO, Defendant and Appellant. |
Forno & Umann, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Arthur L. Martin, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for violation of the provisions of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code (possession of narcotics).
In an information filed April 10, 1956, in Los Angeles county, the defendant was charged with a violation of the provisions of section 11500, Health and Safety Code, and further, it was charged that before the commission of the offense charged, namely in 1950, he was convicted of the crime of robbery and served a term in the state prison therefor. The defendant pleaded not guilty and denied the prior conviction. A trial by jury was waived by the defendant, his attorney and the district attorney. By stipulation, the case of the People was submitted on the transcript of the testimony taken at the preliminary hearing and the exhibits referred to therein. The defendant did not testify in his own behalf, nor did he present any witnesses or other evidence. The defendant was found guilty as charged, and it was further found that the charge of the prior conviction was true and the defendant was thereupon sentenced to the state prison, the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence on which he was then on parole.
A resume of the facts is as follows: Between 11:30 o'clock a. m. and noon, on March 21, 1956, Frank Batelle, a police officer of the Los Angeles Police Department, met a 'confidential informer', whom the officer had known for ten years and had been in direct contact with on and off for the past three or four years, when the informant was not in jail. On previous occasions the officer had received information from the informant. The informant told the officer that 'he would take [Batelle] and point out a house in which a known narcotic pusher was living and also that he [the narcotic pusher] had approximately two ounces of heroin in the house at that time'; that defendant Merino worked for Armando Mendoza and that the narcotics had been brought from Tijuana two or three days before the date of the conversation, and some of which were the narcotics the defendant had in his possession at the house in question. The officer had known the defendant previously by nickname from a source other than the informant. The officer drove with the informant to a stated address, which the informant pointed out as the house where the narcotics were. The informant also told the officer that the black Oldsmobile '98 automobile, parked in front of the house, was the car owned by the defendant. Following the pointing out of the house, the officer drove the car in which they were riding four or five blocks away and let the informant out. The officer who had been given the information, and another officer named Frias, returned at once to the house in question. Batelle entered the front door and Frias entered the side or rear door of the house. The front screen door was closed, but the wooden door was open, as was the door through which Frias entered. Upon entering, the officers were met by the defendant's wife, who screamed and wanted to know who they were. The officers identified themselves as police officers and asked for 'Largo', the defendant's nickname. She stated that he was in the bathroom taking a shower but the officers heard no sound of running water. At about this time the defendant opened the bathroom door and started to come out, and when Batelle identified himself, the defendant attempted to slam the bathroom door. Batelle put his foot in a position to the end that the door could not be shut, and a struggle ensued between the officer and the defendant. The defendant was then handcuffed and Batelle found a metal tray containing thirty-seven capsules of heroin on the window sill directly above the toilet bowl in the bathroom. Shortly after the arrest the officer and the defendant, in the presence of the defendant's wife, had a conversation in which the defendant freely and voluntarily stated that he had no more 'stuff', and that the narcotics which had been found belonged to him, and that his wife knew nothing about it.
The defendant contends that the narcotics in question were obtained as the result of an unlawful search and seizure, and were erroneously admitted into evidence in violation of his constitutional rights.
This is not a case where the officer received information from an anonymous person, or just a mere 'tip', nor is it the situation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Satterfield
......163; People v. Ruiz (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 695, 700--701, 16 Cal.Rptr. 885; People v. Fisher (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 308, 315, 7 Cal.Rptr. 461; People v. Hurst (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 379, 385--386, 6 Cal.Rptr. 483; People v. Williams (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 774, 776, 1 Cal.Rptr. 44; People v. Merino......
-
Priestly v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco
...... Penal Code, § 999a.' Badillo v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 269, 271, 294 P.2d 23, 24; People v. Valenti, 49 Cal.2d 199, 203, 316 P.2d 633; Willson v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 291, 292, 294 P.2d 36; Rogers v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 3, 7, ...Salcido, 154 Cal.App.2d 520, 522, 316 P.2d 639; People v. Moore, 154 Cal.App.2d 43, 46-47, 315 P.2d 357; People v. Merino, 151 Cal.App.2d 594, 597, 312 P.2d 48; People v. Alaniz, 149 Cal.App.2d 560, 567, 309 P.2d 71; and People v. Gonzales, 141 Cal.App.2d 604, 606-607, ......
-
Priestly v. Superior Court in and for City and County of San Francisco
...... that all the evidence of the crimes involved was secured by an illegal search and seizure and was therefore inadmissible under the rule of People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434, 282 P.2d 905, 50 A.L.R.2d 513. The motion was denied. Thereupon petitioner filed the present application for a writ of ... People v. Merino", 151 Cal.App.2d 594, 312 P.2d 48; People v. Gonzales, 141 Cal.App.2d 604, 297 P.2d 50; People v. Alaniz, 149 Cal.App.2d 560, 309 P.2d 71. . \xC2"......
-
People v. Verrette
...... (See People v. Torres, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 867, 17 Cal.Rptr. at p. 497, 366 P.2d at p. 825; People v. Hurst, 183 Cal.App.2d 379, 385, 6 Cal.Rptr. 483; People v. Merino, 151 Cal.App.2d 594, 597, 312 P.2d 48.). Now, to apply these principles to the case: The officers, before they completed entry, knew the following: (1) A buy of narcotics had been made by officers at 1528 Haight Street three weeks earlier. (2) Thomas emerged from 1528 Haight Street ......