Constancio

People v. Constancio

Good Law
116 Cal. Rptr. 910·1974 Cal. App. LEXIS 1246·42 Cal. App. 3d 533
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 17, 1974Crim. 7394California4,662 words

Opinion

Opinion

Puglia, J.

Defendants Helen Vallesteros and Gail Constancio were jointly tried and convicted by jury of possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350). Additionally, the jury convicted defendant Constancio of possession of amphetamines (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350) and possession of paraphernalia for the use of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364). Defendants contend that the search which produced evidence essential to their convictions was unlawful and that they did not receive effective assistance of counsel. Our review of the record and the applicable law convinces us that the defendants’ contentions must fail and that the judgments must be affirmed.

In the afternoon of July 16, 1973, law enforcement officers went to the residence occupied by defendants for the purpose of searching the residence and the person of defendant Constancio. The officers had information from a confidential, reliable informant, based upon the informant’s personal observations, that the defendants had sold heroin from the residence within three to four days before the 16th of July. The officers did not have a search warrant or warrant of arrest. They knew, however, that defendant…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.