People v. Tuttle
| Decision Date | 20 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 2402 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ray Grant TUTTLE, Defendant and Appellant. |
Defendant forged the signature of the payor on at least ten checks; cashed them; received $652.80 from the persons cashing such; and was convicted of eight counts of forgery in connection therewith. Upon his arrest the police removed from his person $726.56, and took from his possession items of personal property consisting of cartons of cigarettes, 50 bottles of 7-UP and several bottles of various types of liquor. At his trial on the forgery charges the court admitted in evidence as exhibits, upon offer by the prosecution, some of the property, including money, taken from defendant at the time of his arrest. That part thereof not introduced in evidence was retained by the police. After his conviction became final he moved the court to order the return to him of all of the property aforesaid. His motion was denied. He appeals.
The People moved to dismiss the appeal upon the ground the order denying defendant's motion is not appealable. He replies that the order comes within the provisions of subdivision 3, § 1237 of the Penal Code which permits him to appeal from 'any order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the party.'
That part of defendant's motion directed to the return of the property admitted in evidence as an exhibit was made pursuant to § 1418 of the Penal Code which provides in part:
'The court May, on application of the party entitled thereto, or an agent designated in writing by the owner, order all such exhibits, * * *, as may be released from the custody of the court without prejudice to the state, delivered to such party any time after the final determination of the action or proceeding.' (Italics ours.)
By express terms this provision of the statute is permissive in nature rather than mandatory; authorizes the court, in its discretion, to release exhibits; and does not confer upon the party entitled thereto a right to obtain their release. Other provisions of the statute authorize the court to dispose of such exhibits when the 'party entitled' to them is unknown. Considered as a whole, the statute is merely a housekeeping measure authorizing the court to dispose of exhibits in its custody. Indicative of the discretionary nature of the statute is the contrast between Penal Code § 1418, which provides the court 'may' order release of exhibits, and Penal Code §§ 1408 and 1409 which provide, under designated circumstances, the court 'must' order the property in the custody of a peace officer or of a magistrate to be delivered to the owner. The latter code sections have been held unconstitutional because they contain no provision for giving notice of proceedings thereunder to interested parties or permitting them to be heard, and thus violate the constitutional guarantee of due process. (People v. Lawrence, 140 Cal.App.2d 133, 295 P.2d 4; Modern Loan Co. v. Police...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Superior Court
...to retain the property independent of and beyond that derived from the search warrant. The cases cited by the People (People v. Tuttle, 242 Cal.App.2d 883, 52 Cal.Rptr. 204; People v. Lawrence, 140 Cal.App.2d 133, 295 P.2d 4; and Modern Loan Co. v. Police Court, Supra, 12 Cal.App. 582) for ......
-
Bryant v. Swoap
...3 Cal.3d 937, 948, 92 Cal.Rptr. 309, 479 P.2d 669, cert. den. 401 U.S. 1012, 91 S.Ct. 1266, 28 L.Ed.2d 549; People v. Tuttle, 242 Cal.App.2d 883, 885, 52 Cal.Rptr. 204; D'Amico v. Brock, 122 Cal.App.2d 63, 70--71, 264 P.2d 120.) If 'unmarried' is construed to mean 'not presently married,' t......
-
People v. Percoats
...in defendant's conviction; and the order therein could not have affected any substantial right subject to that action." (People v. Tuttle (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 883, 885.) "A motion for return of property is a separate procedure from the criminal trial and is not reviewable on an appeal from......
-
Franklin v. Municipal Court
...1418 has been commented upon in two cases, Wenzler v. Municipal Court, 235 Cal.App.2d 128, 45 Cal.Rptr. 54; and People v. Tuttle, 242 Cal.App.2d 883, 52 Cal.Rptr. 204. In each the comment was unnecessary to the disposition of the case before the court. In Wenzler the appellate court comment......