People v. Myles, Cr. 26149

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtASHBY; KAUS, P.J., and STEPHENS
Citation50 Cal.App.3d 423,123 Cal.Rptr. 348
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard MYLES, Defendant and Appellant.
Decision Date04 August 1975
Docket NumberCr. 26149

Page 348

123 Cal.Rptr. 348
50 Cal.App.3d 423
The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Richard MYLES, Defendant and Appellant.
Cr. 26149.
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.
Aug. 4, 1975.

[50 Cal.App.3d 426]

Page 349

George Rosenberg, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., S. Clark Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frederick R. Millar, Jr., and William R. Weisman, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

ASHBY, Associate Justice.

In a jury trial appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property belonging to Marilyn Miranda (Pen.Code, § 496), and

Page 350

of burglary of the residence of Tony Merriweather (Pen.Code, § 459). 1 He appeals from the judgment sentencing him to imprisonment in the state prison.
FACTS

COUNT II (MIRANDA)

On August 17, 1973, Marilyn Miranda's apartment at 965 So. Magnolia was burglarized sometime after 1 p.m. Two television sets and stereo equipment were taken. At approximately 4 p.m. that date Officer William Barker of the Los Angeles police observed appellant and another man named Dozier at 4515 So. Vermont in a 1965 Ford, subsequently shown to belong to Dozier. Appellant was the passenger and Dozier was driving. Appellant and Dozier got out of the vehicle and opened the trunk. The looked inside the trunk, along with some other people from a garage at that location. Officer Barker observed two television sets in the trunk. Appellant or Dozier then closed the trunk. 2 Appellant re-entered the vehicle on the passenger side; Dozier re-entered on the driver's side and drove away.

[50 Cal.App.3d 427] Officer Barker stopped the Dozier vehicle at 47th and Vermont. He approached the passenger side of the vehicle and asked appellant his name. Officer Barker examined the televisions in the trunk, then 'questioned the defendant and the other party in the vehicle, as to the ownership, brand names, serial numbers of the televisions. . . . They couldn't give me the brand names or ownership of the televisions. They were taken to Southwest Station for further investigation.' The televisions were subsequently identified by the victim Miranda.

At trial appellant testified in his own defense as follows: He did not commit the Miranda burglary and he did not know the TV sets in Dozier's car were stolen. Dozier had come by appellant's house earlier that day and tried to sell appellant or his girl friend a TV set, but they did not buy from him. Dozier told them that he had bought the television set from some person. When the police stopped the car and asked appellant if it was his TV, he told them no.

COUNT III (MERRIWEATHER)

On December 11, 1973, Tony Merriweather's residence at 1645 E. 50th Place was burglarized sometime after 1:30 p.m. Among the items taken were his television set and a gold leather jacket.

At 8:30 p.m. on that date Officer Williams of the Los Angeles Police Department observed appellant walking near 51st Street and Long Beach, a high burglary neighborhood. Appellant was carrying a television set and a light tan jacket under his right arm. Officer Williams and his partner stopped appellant. A pat-down search for weapons revealed a screwdriver, steak knife, and putty knife, commonly used as burglar tools, in appellant's pockets. Appellant turned his head toward the intersection of 51st and Long Beach. There a male Negro with a jacket in one hand and a flight bag in the other looked in the officer's direction and then ran. Officer Williams chased this man but lost him.

Officer Williams asked appellant if the television set belonged to him. Appellant replied that it was not his, and he did not know the brand name. Appellant was asked who owned the television, and he responded with a man's name and indicated the man lived in the 1600 block of East 51st Street. Officer Williams asked appellant if he would direct them to the man's house, and appellant indicated he would.

Page 351

Appellant was placed handcuffed in the police vehicle and they proceeded in that direction. As they approached the location first indicated by appellant, [50 Cal.App.3d 428] appellant changed his story and said that the man lived three blocks west from there. As they approached the second location indicated by appellant, he changed his story again and said that the television belonged to Eleanor McDowell who lived in the 1500 block of East 53rd. After proceeding to that location and speaking with McDowell, Officer Williams arrested appellant and advised him of his rights. Appellant was asked to whom the jacket belonged; he indicated it was his brother's. However, the size of the jacket was different from the size appellant said his brother wore. Subsequently appellant stated that he had not seen his brother in a year, and that the brother lived in Louisiana.

At trial appellant testified in his own behalf, denying that the committed the Merriweather burglary. He testified that he found the television and the leather coat in a trash barrel near 51st and Morgan. He was taking the steak knife and putty knife which were in his pocket to his girl friend Eleanor McDowell, to scale fish.

CONTENTIONS
COUNT II

As to count II, appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment. We have concluded that this contention is correct and that the judgment as to count II must be reversed.

To sustain a conviction of receiving stolen property it must be shown (a) that property was received, concealed or withheld by the accused; (b) that such property had been obtained by theft or extortion; and (c) that the accused knew that the property had been obtained. (People v. Kunkin, 9 Cal.3d 245, 249, 107 Cal.Rptr. 184, 507 P.2d 1392.)

Respondent relies upon the wellestablished principle that the possession of stolen property, accompanied by no explanation or unsatisfactory explanation, or by suspicious circumstances, will justify an inference that the goods were received...

To continue reading

Request your trial
66 practice notes
  • People v. Suennen, Cr. 20129
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 31, 1980
    ...354, 146 Cal.Rptr. 307; People v. Superior Court (Torres) (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 620, 624-625, 136 Cal.Rptr. 779; People v. Myles (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 430, 123 Cal.Rptr. 348.) Officer Foley properly acted upon the knowledge which Hummel imparted to him and the request to conduct a pat-se......
  • State v. Wylie, No. 4235
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • May 12, 1987
    ...989, 95 S.Ct. 1993, 44 L.Ed.2d 479 (1975); United States ex rel. Richardson, v. Rundle, 461 F.2d 860 (3d Cir.1972); People v. Myles, 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 123 Cal.Rptr. 348 (1975); cf. Commonwealth v. Pegram, 450 [10 Conn.App. 689] Pa. 590, 301 A.2d 695 (1973). The motion to suppress the gun l......
  • People v. Johnson, Cr. 19077
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 28, 1980
    ...and control must be shown (People v. Martin, supra, 9 Cal.3d at p. 696, 108 Cal.Rptr. 809, 511 P.2d 1161; People v. Myles (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 429, 123 Cal.Rptr. 348; People v. Zyduck (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 334, 336, 75 Cal.Rptr. 616), it is well settled that the possession of the stole......
  • People v. Land, No. B080518
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 21, 1994
    ...It is sufficient if the defendant acquires a measure of control or dominion over the stolen property. (People v. Myles (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 429, 123 Cal.Rptr. 348; see also 3 Witkin & Epstein, Cal.Criminal Law (2d ed. 1988) Crimes against Property, § 628, pp. 706-707 and cases However,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
66 cases
  • People v. Suennen, Cr. 20129
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 31, 1980
    ...354, 146 Cal.Rptr. 307; People v. Superior Court (Torres) (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 620, 624-625, 136 Cal.Rptr. 779; People v. Myles (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 430, 123 Cal.Rptr. 348.) Officer Foley properly acted upon the knowledge which Hummel imparted to him and the request to conduct a pat-se......
  • State v. Wylie, No. 4235
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • May 12, 1987
    ...989, 95 S.Ct. 1993, 44 L.Ed.2d 479 (1975); United States ex rel. Richardson, v. Rundle, 461 F.2d 860 (3d Cir.1972); People v. Myles, 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 123 Cal.Rptr. 348 (1975); cf. Commonwealth v. Pegram, 450 [10 Conn.App. 689] Pa. 590, 301 A.2d 695 (1973). The motion to suppress the gun l......
  • People v. Johnson, Cr. 19077
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 28, 1980
    ...and control must be shown (People v. Martin, supra, 9 Cal.3d at p. 696, 108 Cal.Rptr. 809, 511 P.2d 1161; People v. Myles (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 429, 123 Cal.Rptr. 348; People v. Zyduck (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 334, 336, 75 Cal.Rptr. 616), it is well settled that the possession of the stole......
  • People v. Land, No. B080518
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 21, 1994
    ...It is sufficient if the defendant acquires a measure of control or dominion over the stolen property. (People v. Myles (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 429, 123 Cal.Rptr. 348; see also 3 Witkin & Epstein, Cal.Criminal Law (2d ed. 1988) Crimes against Property, § 628, pp. 706-707 and cases However,......
  • 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