People v. Ortiz
| Decision Date | 09 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 8315 |
| Citation | 208 Cal.App.2d 313,25 Cal.Rptr. 431 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Vincent Lujan ORTIZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
Vincent Lujan Ortiz, defendant and appellant, in pro. per.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jack K. Weber, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
In an information filed by the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, defendant and his wife (not appealing here) were jointly charged with a violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code, possession of heroin. Three prior felony convictions were alleged as to defendant which were initially denied but later, out of the presence of the jury, admitted to be true. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty. After a jury trial defendant was found guilty as charged. Motion for a new trial and probation were denied, and defendant was sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law.
Defendant applied to this court for appointment of counsel to assist him on appeal. This court, having made an independent investigation of the record and having determined that it would be neither advantageous to defendant nor helpful to this court to have counsel appointed, denied the application, whereupon defendant prosecutes this appeal in propria persona. This is an appeal from the judgment and order denying motion for new trial.
Harry E. Dorrell, a police officer assigned to the narcotics division, testified that he had known defendant for about a year before the arrest. During that time he had received information from various sources that defendant and his wife were selling and using narcotics. A day or two before the arrest he had received information that they had 22 ounces of heroin in their possession. Defendant and his wife were staying at a motel in the City of Los Angeles. Officer Dorrell, accompanied by a fellow officer, went to the motel and showed photographs of defendant and his wife to the motel manager who admitted that the same persons were occupying a room in the motel. Defendant and his wife were not in at the time, and the manager permitted the officers to use a vacant room next door to the unit occupied by defendant.
The officers were in the motel room looking out the window when they first observed defendant and his wife in the motel parking lot. As they were walking to their motel unit, defendant and his wife were stopped by the officers who identified themselves. Defendant's wife was asked if she was still using narcotics, and she replied that she was. Defendant was also asked if he was still using narcotics, and he answered that he was. The officers observed what appeared to be fresh hypodermic needle marks on defendant's arm, and on the hands and wrists of his wife. The officers asked defendant to show him where he was taking narcotics. Defendant began to take off his coat, and one of the officers said 'Never mind, I will take your word for it.' At the request of the officers, defendant's wife voluntarily gave the room key to the officers who then asked if there were any narcotics inside the room. Defendant replied, 'No, you can go ahead and search it.'
The officers asked if they could search defendant, and defendant said 'Go ahead.' Defendant stated he gave permission for the search because he was 'pretty certain he didn't have anything on him against the law.' He stated he didn't think there was any more 'stuff' (which in narcotics jargon means heroin). They searched defendant's person and found a cigarette package with five rubber containers in it, each containing a quarter ounce of a whitish powder resembling heroin. The officers asked defendant what he was going to do with it and defendant said he was going to 'burn somebody.' Defendant stated he had picked it up just before he entered the room. The officers made a search of the spot which he pointed out and found two more rubber containers, each holding the whitish powder resembling heroin.
Defendant testified in his own behalf. He stated that he stopped before they went in the motel room to ask his wife for the key. She told him the house key was in the package of cigarettes in the plants outside the motel unit. She asked him to get it because she didn't want to get her shoes dirty. He picked up the package which, a few minutes later, the officers took away from him. Defendant denied to the officers that he was using narcotics.
At the preliminary hearing defendant's counsel stipulated to the qualifications of the prosecution's witness as an expert chemist and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bartlett
......1 A defendant who fails to move under section 995 to dismiss an information charging an offense other than the one designated in the commitment order has been held to have waived such objection. (People v. Ortiz, 208 Cal.App.2d 313, 316, 25 Cal.Rptr. 431; People McCoy, 181 Cal.App.2d 284, 288, 5 Cal.Rptr. 107; People v. Rankin, 169 Cal.App.2d 150, 164, 337 P.2d 182; People v. Workman, 121 Cal.App.2d 533, 535, 263 P.2d 458; People v. Ahern, 113 Cal.App.2d 746, 750, 249 P.2d 63.) In the instant case ......
-
People v. Sigal
...raise the objection by motion to dismiss (prior to demurrer or plea) constitutes a waiver of any future objection (People v. Ortiz, 208 Cal.App.2d 313, 25 Cal.Rptr. 431; People v. Diaz, 206 Cal.App.2d 651, 24 Cal.Rptr. 367). In fact, in People v. Elliot, 54 Cal.2d 498, 503, 6 Cal.Rptr. 753,......
-
People v. Morrison, Cr. 13198
...a certain manner, quite commonly forensic chemists in narcotics cases, thus saving considerable time and expense. In People v. Ortiz, 208 Cal.App.2d 313, 25 Cal.Rptr. 431, which involved the stipulated-to testimony of an expert chemist, we answered a contention similar to that urged here, i......
-
People v. Topps
...attrial constitutes a forfeiture of that argument on appeal. (People v. Bartlett (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 787, 792; People v. Ortiz (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 313, 316.) B. Excluded Evidence/Assistance of Counsel Defendant contends the trial court erred by excluding two hearsay statements made by T......