People v. Walters

Decision Date09 August 1968
Docket NumberCr. 14250
Citation264 Cal.App.2d 834,70 Cal.Rptr. 766
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John Cavallero WALTERS, Defendant and Appellant.

John R. Sheehan, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mark A. Ivener, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

FOURT, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of possessing marijuana for sale.

Defendant Walters, and his codefendants Valdivia, Marquez, and Gonzales, were charged with possession of narcotics in two counts. Count I of the information filed in Los Angeles on January 4, 1966, and numbered 315940, charged them with the crime of possession of heroin for sale on December 15, 1965, and Count II charged them with possessing marijuana for sale on December 15, 1965. Jury trial was waived and the case was submitted on the testimony and exhibits introduced at the preliminary hearing. Defendant Walters pleaded 'not guilty' to both counts and presented no defense. The court originally found him guilty as charged, but upon Walters' motion for a new trial, the court determined that he was not guilty as to Count I, possessing heroin for sale. With respect to Count II, it appeared to the trial court that defendant Walters was addicted or by reason of repeated use of narcotics was in imminent danger of becoming addicted to narcotics; criminal proceedings were adjourned and the court ordered a petition filed for examination and hearing on that issue. (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 3051.) The California Rehabilitation Center subsequently determined that Walters was not a fit subject for its program and defendant was returned to the court for further proceedings. At that time Walters' petition for habeas corpus and request for probation were denied and he was sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law, the sentence to run concurrently with sentences imposed for Walters' conviction on two counts of selling heroin (Case No. 323090). The court thereupon recommended that Walters be placed in an institution where he might be treated for narcotic drug addiction. Walters has appealed from the judgment of conviction.

The evidence discloses that on December 8, 1965, Officer Raymond Camacho of the Los Angeles Narcotics Division, and several other narcotics officers, proceeded on information obtained by Agent Provencio of the State Narcotics Bureau from a reliable informant, to conduct a narcotics investigation at an address on Gratian Street in Los Angeles. The reliable informant had told Agent Provencio that 'Mike,' a short, dark Mexican man about forty years old, was dealing in both marijuana and heroin on the east side of Los Angeles and that he drove a late-model, light-colored Chevrolet. Officer Camacho was at that time unable to identify this person. On December 15, 1965, however, Officer Camacho was informed by Agent Provencio, once again via his informant, that 'Mike' had been arrested by the Los Angeles Police Department three or four months earlier with several ounces of heroin in his possession. Thereupon Officer Camacho investigated local police records and discovered that one Mike Valdivia had in fact been arrested on September 22, 1965. Officer Camacho obtained a police photograph of the suspect and his address. Valdivia's appearance conformed to the earlier description of 'Mike' which was obtained from the informant. Officer Camacho thereafter received additional information from a known reliable informant who had told Sergeant Appier that Mike Valdivia had been selling marijuana and heroin on the east side of Los Angeles. This informant confirmed that Mike Valdivia drove a late-model white Chevrolet and said that he also used two light-colored Ford Rancheros, and that he had moved his operations from the former address on Belden Street where he had been arrested, to a location on Gratian Street. Officer Camacho proceeded to Valdivia's Belden Street address and there he observed a light-colored Chevrolet parked in the street.

At about 1:00 p.m. on December 15, 1965, Officer Camacho and Sergeant Ridenour identified the location on Gratian Street and staked out the building. They learned through the police department that Albert Gonzales lived at this residence. A short time later they observed codefendant Valdivia walk to the rear of the building and approach codefendant Mary Gonzales. They held a brief conversation and Valdivia proceeded to a small shed at the rear of the property. He entered the shed, appeared again a short time later, and drove away in a light-colored Ford Ranchero. Later that day Officer Camacho noticed a Ford Ranchero parked at the front of the Belden Street address and obtained its license number in an attempt to ascertain the owner. Thereafter he spoke once again to Agent Provencio who said that his informant had told him the narcotics were concealed in the bottom panels of the Ford Rancheros, in order that they could be quickly moved from one location to another.

Officer Camacho then returned to the Gratian Street address accompanied by several other officers. A light-colored Ford Ranchero, license number 'Frank 52550' which codefendant Valdivia had been driving earlier and a red Ford Ranchero, license number 'Lincoln 34023' which Officer Camacho had observed parked in front of the Belden Street address were both backed up to the small shed at the back of the Gratian Street property. The officers, who were approximately 100 feet from the shed, saw a light in the shed and a group of people standing around the Ford Rancheros. Through their field glasses the officers observed that the persons were moving some objects from the rear of one of the Ford Rancheros into the small shed. The door was open and the light shone out of the shed and it appeared that some type of cover had been applied to the window of the shed. Shortly thereafter the light went out. Officer Camacho walked ahead as he and several other officers proceeded toward the shed. He saw defendant Valdivia at the door and could hear a chain rattling. Walters and codefendant Marquez were standing behind Valdivia by the shed and appeared to be dropping some objects into a large wooden box.

Walters saw Officer Camacho and took a couple of steps toward the officer, who walked up to him and announced 'Police officer.' His codefendants, Valdivia and Marquez, immediately started to run toward the front of the Gratian Street property. When the officer repeated his identification, the two codefendants only ran faster. Officer Camacho directed the beam of his flashlight into the bed of the Ford Ranchero where he could observe what appeared to him to be marijuana debris. He then approached the door of the shed but found it locked with a lock and chain and proceeded to flash his flashlight into an opening on the north side of the shed to illuminate the interior. He observed in the corner of the shed a cardboard box containing two brownpaper wrapped objects which he believed to be kilo blocks of marijuana. He then went around to the front of the shed again and placed Walters, who was standing there, under arrest. The other officers returned with defendants Valdivia and Marquez, and Officer Camacho placed them also under arrest for possession of marijuana. All the apprehended suspects were promptly advised of their constitutional rights and acknowledged that they understood.

In response to Officer Camacho's questions, Valdivia said the lock on the shed was his. The officer then took from Valdivia's left pants pocket a set of keyrings and opened the lock on the shed with one of the keys. Valdivia refused to answer when asked if everything in the shed belonged to him. Officer Camacho then had Mary Gonzales brought from the house, placed her also under arrest for possession of marijuana, and advised her of her constitutional rights. Officer Camacho asked Walters whether any of the 'stuff' (referring to several types of narcotics, including marijuana, heroin, pills, or synthetics) in the shed was his, and Walters thereupon denied that any of it belonged to him. Marquez also denied ownership; Valdivia and Mary Gonzales refused to answer the question. The officer walked into the shed, removed an old blanket pulled over some objects in the corner, and there found numerous objects which he identified as marijuana kilo blocks. He searched further and found underneath a wash basin a duffle bag containing seven kilo blocks of marijuana. There were two kilo blocks in the carboard box in the corner and a paper bag containing five condoms full of heroin in a cardboard drum under some clothing. He thereafter explored the automobiles parked by the shed and there found marijuana debris, additional bags containing marijuana, and a scale of the type commonly used to weigh narcotics.

Defendant Valdivia said that the white Ford Ranchero belonged to him and when asked again whether the narcotics were all his, finally responded 'I guess so.' Sergeant Ridenour took two keys on a single wire from Walters and the officers determined that these keys operated the red Ford Ranchero with license No. 'Lincoln 34023.'

It was Officer Camacho's opinion that since the kilo blocks of marijuana were approximately 2.2 lbs. each and had not been cut, they were being held for sale. The price of such blocks varies from $75 to $125 depending on the location of sale and the quantity purchased. Officer Camacho further believed that the 2.3 ounces of heroin found packaged was being held for sale and testified that heroin sells for approximately $375 to $450 an ounce. This marijuana, including seeds and stems, would make approximately 3000--4000 cigarettes per kilo. If the marijuana were manicured, excluding seeds, stems, stalks, 1000 cigarettes could be made from one...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • People v. Moran
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • January 27, 1970
    ...4 Cal.Rptr. 470; see CALJIC No. 851 (Revised).2 People v. Mason (1969) 276 A.C.A. 473, 475, 81 Cal.Rptr. 195; People v. Walters (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 834, 845, 70 Cal.Rptr. 766; People v. Carter (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 400, 404, 59 Cal.Rptr. 394; People v. Hicks (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 265, 270......
  • State v. Parkinson
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1978
    ...1383 (1975); United States v. Mullen, 416 F.2d 456 (4th Cir. 1969); Anthony v. State, 220 So.2d 837 (Miss.1969); People v. Walters, 264 Cal.App.2d 834, 70 Cal.Rptr. 766 (1968); Commonwealth v. Femino, 352 Mass. 508, 226 N.E.2d 248 (1967); State v. Deltenre, 77 N.M. 497, 424 P.2d 782 (1967),......
  • People v. Spelio
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 17, 1970
    ...was unlawful. 'The mere observation of that which is in plain and open view does not constitute a search.' (People v. Walters, 264 Cal.App.2d 834, 841, 70 Cal.Rptr. 766, 771.) Having seen the marijuana seeds, Officer Clements certainly had probable cause to believe the car contained further......
  • People v. Gossett
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 22, 1971
    ...induced to commit the act for which he is on trial, and the issue is one for determination by the trier of fact (People v. Walters, 264 Cal.App.2d 834, 845, 70 Cal.Rptr. 766; People v. Tostado, 217 Cal.App.2d 713, 32 Cal.Rptr. 178), not by a reviewing court. Where, as here, an agent of the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT