Court Opinion

ID: 9542368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:33:34.07706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:48.030067
License: Public Domain

McCOMB, J.
I dissent. I would affirm the judgment for the reasons expressed by Mr. Justice Pourt in the opinion prepared by him for the District Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, and concurred in by Mr. Presiding Justice Wood and Justice Lillie, which is quoted in full below:
This is an appeal from the " judgment and sentence and denial of motion for new trial” made following a conviction of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459).
In an information filed in Los Angeles County on August 5, 1963, defendant was charged in Count I with burglarizing the apartment of Oscar Kelsey at 4226 West Adams Street on June 18, 1963, she was charged in Count II with burglarizing the apartment of Andrew La Berth Jr. between June 18 and June 19 of 1963. Counsel other than the public defender was appointed to represent the defendant, she pleaded not guilty and a jury trial was had. She was convicted of the charge set forth in Count I and acquitted of the Count II charge. She previously was convicted of and served a term in a state prison on a narcotics offense, although such prior charge was not alleged in the information. Probation was denied and she was sentenced to the state prison. This appeal followed.
The “sentence” and the “order denying the motion for *547the new trial” are not appealable under the circumstances of this ease and will be dismissed accordingly.
A résumé of some of the facts is as follows: On June 18, 1963, Kelsey left his apartment numbered 203, 4226 West Adams Street, Los Angeles, in good order and condition when he went to work at about 6:50 a.m. When he returned in the evening he found that the apartment had been ransacked and a number of his belongings were missing, including among other things a phonograph record player and radio, a deer rifle and various articles of clothing. No permission had been given to anyone to enter or take the things mentioned or otherwise. An occupant of the apartment house saw a man leave the building about 2 p.m. on June 18 carrying a record player toward a taxicab which was parked in the street. A woman with black hair was seated in the taxicab at the time.
James Yokum, an ex-convict and a codefendant, previous to the trial of defendant Paris, pleaded guilty to burglary of the apartment of Kelsey. He testified in the trial of defendant in effect that he entered the apartment with defendant who helped him remove the stolen items to the taxicab which was used in this particular burglary.
The defendant testified in her own behalf to the effect that she had gone with Yokum on one occasion when he had used a taxicab in a burglary, that she had entered the building on that occasion and that she was in the hallway and saw Yokum enter the apartment, that Yokum had told her on the way to a pawnshop in the taxicab that he had burglarized the apartment from which the record player and rifle were stolen.
An officer testified that he had talked with the defendant after she was arrested and that he .had written the substance of a part of her statements made to him.1
*548Defendant readily admitted that she had served three years in prison in Connecticut on a conviction involving narcotics, that she came to Los Angeles from Chicago on June 11, 1963, and first moved into an apartment on Halldale Street and a week later moved into Apartment 1, 2816 South Ellendale, Los Angeles, with Yokum.
The officer read aloud that statement which he had written while talking to her (fn. 1) and she initialed and dated each page of the statement and stated that what was set forth therein was correct and signed her name to the second page thereof. With reference to her statement to the effect that she had been on ten jobs with Yokum, she and the officer talked the matter over and she indicated that perhaps she was with him on not more than six or seven jobs. The officer asked her if she wanted to change the wording in the document which he had written and she answered, “No, it could have been, it doesn’t matter.” The James referred to in the document was James Yokum.
Yokum was taken into custody upon being caught in the act of burglarizing an establishment on July 11, 1963. The officers talked with him about other crimes which he might have committed and he was asked where he lived and whether he had any stolen property. Yokum related that there possibly could be some items of stolen property in his apartment. He was asked for permission to enter his apartment and Yokum replied: “You can look around my apartment if you wish.” The address which Yokum gave the officer at that time was 2112 Halldale. That address was checked by the police and it was determined that Yokum had not lived there for two or three months. At approximately 4 p.m. of the date of his arrest, Yokum complained of a foot ailment and was taken to the hospital. During the period of his transfer *549from the jail to the receiving hospital and thereafter to the general hospital, an officer learned from Yokum of the 2816 South Ellendale apartment. An officer then gave such information to Sergeant Vernon shortly before 10 p.m. Vernon and two other officers went to the apartment on South Ellen-dale, awakened the manager and had him open the Yokum apartment and made their entrance. The officers had been there about 15 minutes when defendant walked in from the street and admitted that she lived there with Yokum. In the apartment were found, among other things, 167 items which defendant admitted did not belong to her or to Yokum, including among others, six cameras, nine wallets, five clocks, two men’s electric shavers, over 30 items of jewelry and 35 identification cards of various persons. Defendant said in answer to a question as to whether the items were stolen, “Well, I am not sure how he got them. I know he has been doing some type jobs, he usually leaves during the daytime and gets back around 2 p.m. with the loot, and then pawns it and usually tears up the pawn tickets. ’ ’
Appellant now asserts that she was illegally confined as the result of an illegal arrest, that it was error to admit the confession into evidence and particularly to permit that part of it which referred to ten different burglary jobs when only two counts were charged against appellant and that the prosecutor and judge were guilty of misconduct in their cross-examination of appellant.
The arrest and the search and seizure was legal under the circumstances. The officers had the permission of Yokum to enter and search his apartment, they found what appeared to be the loot from many thefts or burglaries. The appellant lived in the apartment with Yokum and she knew a considerable amount concerning which articles were stolen. Yokum had been caught that afternoon in the course of a burglary and she made damaging admissions with reference to the loot in the apartment. There can be no doubt that there was probable cause for the officers to believe that appellant was a participant or an aider and abettor in the various thefts or burglaries of Yokum. See White v. Martin, 215 Cal.App.2d 641, 650 [30 Cal.Rptr. 367]; People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407 [2 Cal.Rptr. 14, 348 P.2d 577]; Bompensiero v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.2d 178 [281 P.2d 250]; People v. Brite, 9 Cal.2d 666 [72 P.2d 122].
There was no evidence that Yokum was under any pressure *550or under restraint when he gave his permission to the officers to make a search of the apartment. People v. Burke, 47 Cal.2d 45, 49 [301 P.2d 241]; Castaneda v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.2d 439 [30 Cal.Rptr. 1, 380 P.2d 641]; People v. Michael, 45 Cal.2d 751, 753 [290 P.2d 852].
It was Yokum who gave the consent to enter and search the apartment, not the manager of the apartment house who merely opened the door apparently with a pass key. In other words, it was a joint occupant of the apartment who granted permission to the police to enter and search and the search was made in good faith, based upon such consent. People v. Ransome, 180 Cal.App.2d 140 [4 Cal.Rptr. 347]; People v. Hughes, 183 Cal.App.2d 107 [6 Cal.Rptr. 643]; People v. Howard, 166 Cal.App.2d 638 [334 P.2d 105]. See also People v. Amado, 208 Cal.App.2d 780 [25 Cal.Rptr. 539]; People v. Kinard, 210 Cal.App.2d 85, [26 Cal.Rptr. 377].
The confession of appellant was freely and voluntarily made and was admissible in evidence. People v. Schindler, 179 Cal.App.2d 584 [3 Cal.Rptr. 865]; People v. Hazelip, 166 Cal.App.2d 240 [333 P.2d 237].
There was no misbehavior upon the part of the officer who took the confession from the appellant. People v. Lopez, 60 Cal.2d 223, 248 [32 Cal.Rptr. 424, 384 P.2d 16].
The guilt of appellant as charged in count I of the information is clear. There was no misconduct by the trial judge or the prosecutor. In fact the judge paid particular attention to the rights and interests of all parties and to the witnesses.