People v. Middleworth

THE COURT.

Defendant was found guilty by a jury of seven counts of an information charging violation of Penal Code, section 476a, issuing checks without sufficient funds. Allegations that he had previously been convicted of felonies were also found by the jury to be true and the jury found against defendant on his plea of “not guilty by reason of insanity.” Judgment was pronounced on October 10, 1956, and the defendant was sentenced to terms in the state prison. No appeal was taken from this judgment. More than two years later, about December 16, 1958, the defendant filed in the superior court a document titled “Motion and Application for the Writ of Error Coram Nobis” in which he requested a new trial because of alleged errors in admission of evidence, failure to report arguments and in reading of instructions at his trial. His application was denied by the superior court on December 29,1958, and from this order defendant appeals.

On March 19, 1959, defendant requested this court to appoint an attorney to represent him on this appeal. Notice to defendant’s counsel, who represented him at the trial, was sent informing him of defendant’s request to appoint counsel to represent Mm on appeal and inviting his views as to any possible reversible error in the record. No such error was indicated by him. This court then made an independent examination of the record and determined that it would ■ be of no value to the defendant or helpful to the court to have a counsel appointed.

(People

v.

Hyde,

51 Cal.2d 152 [331 P.2d 42];

People

v.

Marsh,

170 Cal.App.2d 284 [338 P.2d 495].) Appellant was notified that his request for counsel

[621]

had been denied and was requested to file an opening brief or make such other showing as he might desire. Defendant subsequently sent several letters to this court in which he attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. He has also furnished us with affidavits from his mother and wife in which they dispute the adequacy of the defense counsel’s efforts on defendant’s behalf and the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Nowhere is it contended that these asserted facts were unknown to defendant or his wife and mother at the time of his trial.