Harold Arrendondo Ortiz v. Walter E. Craven, Warden

Ninth Circuit

Harold Arrendondo Ortiz v. Walter E. Craven, Warden

442 F.2d 418, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10227

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 12, 1971

Docket25200

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 442 F.2d 418 (Harold Arrendondo Ortiz v. Walter E. Craven, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harold Arrendondo Ortiz v. Walter E. Craven, Warden, 442 F.2d 418, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10227 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Ortiz is a California state prisoner, convicted and sentenced for illegal possession of herbin for the purpose of sale. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11500.5 (West 1964). He appeals the District Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Ortiz argues that there was no reasonable or probable cause for his arrest and that the evidence obtained from the ensuing search should have been excluded. The arresting officer, who had been assigned to a police Narcotics Division for over thirteen years, knew that great numbers of persons frequently visited Ortiz in his hotel, saw numerous scabs or “hype tracts” on Ortiz’s arms, and recognized constricted eyes indicating that Ortiz was possibly *419 under the influence of narcotics. We cannot say that this was insufficient probable cause for an arrest. See People v. Herrera, 221 Cal.App.2d 8, 34 Cal.Rptr. 305 (1963); People v. Di Bla-si, 198 Cal.App.2d 215, 18 Cal.Rptr. 223 (1961).

To us, the prosecution’s evidence that Ortiz possessed the heroin for sale seems weak, but this is not a question of federal constitutional dimension. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 312, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963). We find no constitutional error on the part of the trial judge or Ortiz’s trial counsel. Although certain statements made by Ortiz about his parole violation may have been introduced for more than establishing probable cause for the arrest, our review of the record convinces us that the admission of this evidence was harmless, beyond reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Ortiz is a California state prisoner, convicted and sentenced for illegal possession of herbin for the purpose of sale. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11500.5 (West 1964). He appeals the District Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Ortiz argues that there was no reasonable or probable cause for his arrest and that the evidence obtained from the ensuing search should have been excluded. The arresting officer, who had been assigned to a police Narcotics Division for over thirteen years, knew that great numbers of persons frequently visited Ortiz in his hotel, saw numerous scabs or “hype tracts” on Ortiz’s arms, and recognized constricted eyes indicating that Ortiz was possibly *419 under the influence of narcotics. We cannot say that this was insufficient probable cause for an arrest. See People v. Herrera, 221 Cal.App.2d 8, 34 Cal.Rptr. 305 (1963); People v. Di Bla-si, 198 Cal.App.2d 215, 18 Cal.Rptr. 223 (1961).

To us, the prosecution’s evidence that Ortiz possessed the heroin for sale seems weak, but this is not a question of federal constitutional dimension. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 312, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963). We find no constitutional error on the part of the trial judge or Ortiz’s trial counsel. Although certain statements made by Ortiz about his parole violation may have been introduced for more than establishing probable cause for the arrest, our review of the record convinces us that the admission of this evidence was harmless, beyond reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 F.2d 418, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harold-arrendondo-ortiz-v-walter-e-craven-warden-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack