People v. Valverde

California Court of Appeal Oct 29, 1963 No. Crim. 1782Published

Before: Griffin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's burglary conviction, finding no merit in his claims of procedural error and concluding that the evidence supported the trial court's findings.

Issues

Whether it is error for a judge other than the one who tried the case to pronounce judgment and sentence.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting a confession where the evidence of voluntariness was conflicting.
Whether the defendant waived his right to object to the delivery of the information to counsel rather than himself.
Whether the defendant personally waived his right to a jury trial.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

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

“Such conflicting evidence as the voluntariness of a confession will not be reweighed by the reviewing court.”

“The record demonstrates that defendant received a fair trial, that counsel representing him conducted an energetic defense and that no error was committed by the trial court.”

GRIFFIN, P. J.

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

Downer,

57 Cal.2d 800, 816 [22 Cal.Rptr. 347, 372 P.2d 107], where the court said:

[618]

People v. Valverde

AI Brief

GRIFFIN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief