People v. Carreras

California Court of Appeal Jun 3, 1963 No. Crim. 3392Published

Before: Schottky

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a burglary conviction where the defendant was found in possession of stolen property and provided false explanations for that possession. The court further held that the defendant waived claims regarding trial counsel substitution and speedy trial rights by failing to object at the trial level.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for second-degree burglary.
Whether the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel due to a change in public defenders.
Whether the defendant was denied a speedy trial.
Whether the prosecution was required to proceed by indictment rather than information.

Disposition. Judgment affirmed; appeal from order denying new trial dismissed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Possession alone of property stolen in a burglary is not of itself sufficient to sustain the possessor’s conviction of that burglary. There must be corroborating evidence of acts, conduct, or declarations of the accused tending to show his guilt.”

“These false statements are sufficient to provide the necessary corroborating testimony.”

“We do not believe that appellant is entitled to claim prejudicial error since he made no objection at the trial.”

SCHOTTKY, J.

Raymond Carreras was convicted by a jury of the crime of burglary in the second degree. He has appealed from the judgment entered and from the order of the court denying his motion for a new trial. The latter is now a nonappealable order and the purported appeal therefrom must be dismissed.

It appears from the record that the appellant, Raymond Carreras, was a casual acquaintance of Raymond Dale, the owner and operator of Miller and Dale Auto Repair which was located at 1733 “S” Street, Sacramento, California. On February 22, 1962, Raymond Dale allowed the appellant the use of his shop. On the same day the proprietor, Dale, closed his place of business, noting nothing unusual. The next morning when Dale arrived to reopen the business he found that the hasp which locked the sliding front door had been pried away from the doorjamb so the door could be opened. Also, the padlock was unsuccessfully forced, which had caused it to jam.

The proprietor entered the shop and immediately discovered that his red transmission jack was missing although the accessory arms were left behind. Subsequently, the proprietor discovered that a roughing hone, along with its unique container, a volume of the Motor Manual (21st ed.), and several miscellaneous items were also missing.

Shortly after the burglary the appellant, accompanied by a friend Jerry Sisk, unsuccessfully attempted to sell a red transmission jack and a hoist to various automobile shops located in Loomis, California. The appellant represented to them that he owned an auto shop and that he was liquidating his stock which included the jack and the hoist,

[809]

The police discovered the red transmission jack hidden in the backyard of Jerry Sisk’s home and found the hone, its container, the Motor Manual (21st ed.), and a Ford heater valve concealed in the trunk of a car owned by the appellant’s girl friend. The hone, its container and the jack were identified, positively, by their owner, Raymond Dale. The heater valve and the Motor Manual were identified as being the same type and in the same condition as those previously in his shop. The appellant had previously borrowed a hoist from Raymond Dale which he returned after the burglary.

In his extrajudicial statements following arrest the appellant denied any knowledge of the jack and ever seeing Jerry Sisk with any such jack.

People v. Carreras

AI Brief

SCHOTTKY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief