People v. Guerrero

California Court of Appeal Jan 11, 1967 No. Crim. 2448Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the search of the defendant's vehicle was lawful because the officer was properly searching for a registration slip, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the burglary conviction. Additionally, the court held that a defendant represented by counsel is not entitled to participate in bench conferences.

Issues

Was the search of the defendant's automobile and the seizure of stolen items unlawful?
Was the evidence sufficient to support the conviction for second degree burglary?
Was the defendant denied his constitutional right to appear and defend by the failure to report bench conferences?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Officer Freedland’s search of the automobile and seizure of the stolen articles was not unlawful.”

“Although possession of stolen property is not of itself sufficient to sustain a conviction of burglary, only slight corroborating evidence in addition is required.”

“A represented defendant in a criminal action is not entitled to approach the bench when counsel and court confer.”

[688]

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

Frank Ramirez Guerrero appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon a jury verdict of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460). Guerrero admitted eight prior felony convictions.

On August 5, 1965, Mrs. Jessie Spencer Black discovered missing from her San Diego home her credit cards, driver’s license, and red coin purse. The next morning in a residential area of Monterey Park, Police Officer Freedland noticed an automobile being driven, with a bent left front bumper, crushed front fender grill and headlight, and dangling pieces of torn metal. Suspecting a recent accident with hit and run overtones, the officer followed the automobile. The driver, Guerrero, constantly looking out the left window at the residences, drove for several blocks at about five miles per hour, pulled into a market parking lot, parked in one stall, looked back at the officer following him, started to leave the lot, and, after the officer signalled, pulled into another parking space. The officer checked Guerrero’s driver’s license and while Guerrero was in the market, learned by radio of a traffic warrant, involving $83, for Guerrero’s arrest. On Guerrero’s return, the officer arrested him.

Officer Freedland then noticed a vehicle violation (Veh. Code, § 4454) in that the registration slip was not visible from outside the car; he opened the door to see if it was on the sun visor, and observed in plain sight a galvanized pipe sticking out from under the seat, and several purses under the floor mat which bulged two or three inches above the floor. Mrs. Black’s driver’s license and wallet insert were there. In the trunk, the officer found items belonging to Mr. and Mrs. George Etzold of Oxnard. Mrs. Etzold testified she saw Guerrero driving slowly by her home on the day it was burglarized.

Guerrero stated he found these items in a cardboard box at Pierpoint in Long Beach.

Contrary to Guerrero’s primary contention on appeal, Officer Freedland’s search of the automobile and seizure of the stolen articles was not unlawful. Vehicle Code, section 4454, requires vehicle registration slips be plainly and legibly visible from outside the vehicle. The officer sought to locate the registration slip within the car. This was proper. He was not required to ignore the suspicious circumstances created by the plainly visible galvanized pipe protruding from under the seat, and several purses under the uneven front floor mat which was two to three inches above the floor.

People v. Guerrero

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief