People v. Valverde

• Decision Date: 29 October 1963
• Docket Number: Cr. 1782
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Rosario Robles VALVERDE, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 577

34 Cal.Rptr. 577

221 Cal.App.2d 616

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Rosario Robles VALVERDE, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 1782.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

Oct. 29, 1963.

Carl R. Yoder, Riverside, for defendant and appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

GRIFFIN, Presiding Justice.

Defendant was charged with and convicted of second degree burglary, in violation of Penal Code, section 459. It was alleged and he admitted incurring two prior felony convictions. After filing his appeal, defendant requested this court to appoint counsel to represent him. The appointed counsel, Carl R. Yoder, reviewed the record in the case and advised the court that his review and research disclosed that no meritorious question or error was presented by the record. Our examination of the case indicates that counsel's conclusion is correct.

The evidence indicated that on the night of July 5, 1962, the Savers Drug Store in Coachella, California was burglarized and several watches, cameras, and cartons of cigarettes were taken. On June 23, 1962, the defendant, in a conversation with Chief Ball of the Coachella Police Department, confessed that he had committed the burglary. Defendant said that he and three other men entered the store and took the merchandise. Defendant acted as a lookout while this was being done. The burglars took the stolen goods to a labor camp where it was concealed in a building. The truck used in the burglary had been stolen and was abandoned on the highway. Thereafter some of the stolen goods were sold and the money used to purchase heroin. Defendant told the officer that he had received seven dollars in cash, plus five bindles of heroin from the proceeds of the burglary. Chief Ball testified that the defendant had not been promised any favors or put in fear of harm before he made the confession.

Defendant testified on his own behalf that he did not have anything to do with the burglary. He admitted making the statement to the police officers, but said that he did so because the officers said that they would talk to his parole officer and that the court would sentence him to the county jail. He admitted signing a statement but claimed he did not read it. In rebuttal, Chief Ball testified that the defendant read the entire statement before he signed it.

In a document filed with this court, defendant has made several contentions. For example, he complains that he was tried by one judge and sentenced by another. This same procedure was discussed in the case of People v. Downer, 57 Cal.2d 800, 816, 22 Cal.Rptr. 347, 357, 372 P.2d 107, 117, where the court said:

'It is settled that it is not error for a judge other than the one who tried a criminal case to pronounce judgment and sentence.'

Defendant also urges that the trial court erred in receiving his confession into evidence. As has been previously stated, Chief Ball testified that the confession was free and voluntary. It is true that the defendant testified to a different version of the facts, but this merely created a conflict in the evidence which the trial court resolved against the defendant. Such conflicting evidence as the voluntariness of a confession will not be re-weighed by the reviewing court. (People v. Kendrick, 56 Cal.2d 71 85, 14 Cal.Rptr. 13, 363 P.2d 13, and People v. Baldwin, 42 Cal.2d 858, 867, 270 P.2d 1028.)

The contention that there was error in that the copy of the information was given to counsel and not to the...