People v. Steccone, Cr. 5144

• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Citation: 36 Cal.2d 234,223 P.2d 17
• Decision Date: 24 October 1950
• Docket Number: Cr. 5144
• Parties: PEOPLE v. STECCONE et al.

Page 17

223 P.2d 17 36 Cal.2d 234 PEOPLE
v.
STECCONE et al. Cr. 5144. Supreme Court of California, in Bank. Oct. 24, 1950.

Page 18

[36 Cal.2d 235] J. Emmet Chapman, Frederick C. Dewar, San Francisco, Golden & Fratis and J. Bruce Fratis, Oakland, and Julius M. Keller, San Francisco, for appellants.

Fred N. Howser, Attorney General, and Clarence A. Linn, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.

SPENCE, Justice.

Defendants John P. Steccone and Peter Makris were charged with conspiracy (Pen.Code, § 182, subd. 1) to 'keep and maintain rooms and places * * * (at) 1313 Park Street and 136 Santa Clara Avenue in the city of Alameda, with books, papers, devices and paraphernalia for the purpose of recording and registering bets and wagers on horse races.' (Pen.Code, § 337a, subd. 2.) Six overt acts were listed in the information. The jury returned a verdict finding each defendant guilty as charged. Motions for new trial were separately made and denied. Defendants were placed upon probation, conditioned, among other things, upon defendant Steccone serving a term of six months and defendant Makris a term of three months in the county jail. Each defendant has appealed from the 'judgment' and from the 'order denying a new trial.'

Since the court did not pronounce judgment but suspened proceedings and granted probation, the purported appeals from the judgments must be dismissed, People v.[36 Cal.2d 236] Murphy, 60 Cal.App.2d 762, 765, 141 P.2d 755; People v. Warnick, 86 Cal.App.2d 900, 901, 195 P.2d 552; People v. Labarbera, 89 Cal.App.2d 639, 644, 201 P.2d 584, and consideration will be given only to the points raised by appellants as ground for reversal of the orders denying a new trial. Each appellant questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdicts and the admissibility of certain evidence against him; and, in addition appellant Steccone attacks the propriety of the trial court's refusal of specific instructions requested by him. A review of the record compels the conclusion that neither appellant has shown any ground for reversal.

From the record it appears that appellant Makris, the owner and operator of the Step-Inn Club, a restaurant and tavern located at 1313 Park Street, Alameda, was accepting in July, 1947, bets placed on horse races. Police Officer White testified that 'pursuant to his plain-clothes duty, investigating bookmaking,' he went to Makris' club on July 15, 16, and 18, 1947, on each of which days he 'placed a $2.00 bet'; that during the course of his visits there, makris made two similar telephone calls from behind the counter one on the 15th and the other on the 16th the first to an unnamed person and the second to a person identified as 'John,' each time 'call(ing) off a lengthy list of numbers * * * (and) various amounts of money,' using, among other phrases, the words 'to win, to place, to show'; that while he was on the premises he saw certain persons at the bar place bets with Makris, with the latter putting the money so received 'in his pocket'; and that he, White, collected on his first bet with Makris, who 'checked the list' and then paid him his winnings. Makris was not arrested at this time.

The next date pertinent to the charge against appellants is February 3, 1949, some eighteen months following Officer White's investigation. Police Inspector Johnson testified that on that day about 11:00 o'clock in the morning, he with three other police officers 'in civilian clothes' went to the Step-Inn Club, asked the 'customers

Page 19

in the place * * * to leave,' and then searched the premises 'for evidence.' In a drawer in the back of the bar they found approximately forty-five sheets of paper, ruled horizontally and vertically into lines and columns by a mimeographing process, but with no writing thereon. Makris was then arrested. While the officers were still there, appellant Steccone entered the club, and was immediately 'placed in custody' and searched. On his person was found [36 Cal.2d 237] a 'daily Bulletin and Sports Review' of February 3, 1949, some sheets of ruled paper and a 'single sheet' with writing on it, having columns of figures and the name 'Pete' at the top. These articles were 'laid on (a) shuffleboard table,' and as the officers 'turned away,' Steccone 'grabbed' the paper marked with the name...