People v. Valenzuela
| Decision Date | 27 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6696 |
| Citation | 345 P.2d 270,174 Cal.App.2d 759 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Dora VALENZUELA and Fidel Martinez Nirea, Defendants, Fidel Martinez Nirea, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
James P. Del Guercio, Beverly Hills, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jack E. Goertzen, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Fidel Nirea and Dora Valenzuela were jointly charged with possession of heroin. After entering pleas of not guilty, defendants waived jury trial and their causes were submitted on the transcript of the testimony taken at the preliminary hearing. Both defendants were found guilty. As to Nirea, charges of three former felony convictions (robbery in 1948, escape in 1949, and possession of narcotics in 1955) were found to be true, and he was sentenced to State Prison. Nirea alone appeals, advancing the single contention that the evidence of his possession of the contraband is insufficient to sustain the conviction.
On October 8, 1958, Police Officers Virgin, Pace, and Appier went to a hotel building at 2407 1/2 North Broadway in Los Angeles. Appier and Virgin stationed themselves outside the building. Appier stood directly beneath a second-floor room on the northwest corner of the building, and Virgin stood underneath a window on the north side. Pace proceeded up the stairs to the second floor. Thereupon, Virgin heard a loud pounding on the door above his head and then heard a male voice in the room above him state 'Who is there?'. Officer Virgin heard Sergeant Pace say 'Police Officers'. The male voice inquired 'What?' and Sergeant Pace stated again 'Police Officers'. At that time the window directly above Officer Virgin's head opened and defendant Valenzuela leaned out the window and 'made a backward throwing motion of a blue object.' Sergeant Appier caught this object before it hit the ground. Upon examining the object which Appier had caught, the officers found it to be a blue box containing a spoon, a cigarette package which contained an eyedropper, a needle, one full gelatin Capsule containing a whitish powder subsequently identified as heroin, one partially filled gelatin capsule and one empty gelatin cap.
Officers Virgin and Appier then entered the hotel and went up to Room 5 where Sergeant Pace was standing in the doorway. They placed defendant Valenzuela under arrest and asked defendant Nirea if he lived there. When Nirea answered in the affirmative, the officers placed him under arrest for narcotics violation. Upon entering the room Officer Virgin asked defendant Valenzuela if she had thrown the blue package out of the window. She made no answer.
Later, Valenzuela was asked if she had any more narcotics in the house and she replied The officer then asked Nirea if he had any more narcotics in the house and he replied: It was indicated that in giving this answer Nirea had reference to the blue box which Officer Appier had caught.
Upon entering the hotel room, the officers observed that defendant Valenzuela was naked from the waist up and apparently was about to put on a brown dress. Nirea was clothed only in a pair of khaki pants. Besides the clothing he was wearing, appellant had a pair of brown pants hanging in an alcove that was used as a closet. A pair of men's shoes was observed by a chair in the middle of the room. After the officers entered the room, Nirea repeatedly stated:
Upon a search of the room, the officers found another gelatin capsule in the top drawer of a dresser. They also found two rent receipts in a dresser drawer, one of which was dated October 4, 1958, and the other dated September 27, 1958, each for other dated September 27, 1958, each for $11, and which recited 'Received from Fidel Nirea' and were signed by Pearl Hill.
The testimony of Dora Valenzuela was self-incriminating and tended to exonerate Nirea. She testified in substance that she was a narcotics user, that Nirea was not aware of the fact, and that she had concealed her addiction from him. She testified that at the time of the arrest, Nirea was living with his sister around the corner from her apartment; she admitted that Nirea gave her money with which to pay the rent, but insisted that he was not living with her. Nirea denied knowledge that Valenzuela had thrown the box containing heroin from the window.
We conclude that the evidence above summarized is entirely sufficient to support the findings implied in the judgment of conviction. As...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Von Latta
...character of the substance in the pipe and on the table. (People v. Horn, 187 Cal.App.2d 68, 75, 9 Cal.Rptr. 578; People v. Valenzuela, 174 Cal.App.2d 759, 762, 345 P.2d 270.) Defendant contends the case should have been dismissed pursuant to Penal Code, Section 1382 because the trial occur......
-
Alleyne v. Evans
...from such evidence. People v. Williams, 5 Cal. 3d 211, 215 (1971); People v. Busch, 187 Cal. App.4th 150, 162 (2010); People v. Valenzuela, 174 Cal. App.2d 759, 762 (1959). Here the jury found that the jacket containing the cocaine belonged to petitioner's co-defendant and that based on the......
-
The People v. Colbert
...and control element. (People v. Redrick (1961) 55 Cal.2d 282, 285; People v. Haynes (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 1060, 1064; People v. Valenzuela (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 759, 762; see also People v. Shoals (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 475, 495; People v. Kipnis (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 980, 987.) Rather, joint o......
-
Pinizzotto v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County
...of marijuana are dominion and control thereof coupled with knowledge of its presence and narcotic character. (People v. Valenzuela, 174 Cal.App.2d 759, 762, 345 P.2d 270.) It is well established that the search of a place open to the public is not an unlawful search. (People v. Hilliard, 22......