People v. Marcias

California Court of Appeal Feb 18, 1955 No. Crim. 1010Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, finding that the defendant exercised control over the weapon and that his explanations were not credible. The court further held that the defendant's claims of inadequate counsel, judicial prejudice, and unfair trial conditions were unsupported by the record.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon.
Whether the trial judge exhibited prejudice by denying oral argument.
Whether the defendant received inadequate representation by counsel.
Whether the defendant was denied a fair trial due to being shackled and held in solitary confinement.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The evidence justifies the inference that he took this gun from the pawnshop and the evidence as a whole, including the appellant’s own testimony, is sufficient to sustain the judgment.”

“The court listened to everything counsel had to say and there is no indication that counsel desired to make any further argument.”

BARNARD, P. J.

The defendant was charged with the possession of a firearm in violation of section 12021 of the Penal Code. He was also charged with four prior convictions, with terms served at San Quentin. These included a sentence for robbery in 1942, one for escape from the penitentiary in 1943, one in 1945 for assault with a deadly weapon, and one in 1945 for possession of a weapon in violation of section 4502 of the Penal Code. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged, but admitted the prior convictions. Trial by jury was duly waived and he was tried before the court, the trial judge finding him guilty as charged. He was sentenced to imprisonment in state prison, the sentence to run concurrently with relation to any unserved sentences. He filed notice of appeal from the judgment and from “the motion denying a new trial.” The record discloses no motion for a new trial or action thereon.

The evidence discloses that the defendant was out on parole at the times here involved. About the middle of February, 1954, he purchased some clothing at a pawnshop in San Diego. On that occasion he said he would like to buy a gun, and the saleslady took some guns out of a counter so that he could look at them. The defendant admired a Colt .32 automatic pistol which was numbered 347079. This gun had one clip but did not have a holster. The saleslady was called away and when she returned the defendant handed a gun back to her and she did not then notice that a gun was missing. About the same time the defendant rented Locker No. 5 at a locker club in San Diego on a weekly basis. He rented it under an assumed name and made three weekly payments. The key to the locker was usually left in the office of the locker club but he testified that on one occasion he took the key away with him.

On the morning of March 1, 1954, this locker was opened at the request of a police officer and the officer found this automatic pistol on a shelf in the locker. It was in a leather holster, and the officer also found a clip and a bos of ammunition.

[862]

During that day this officer had a talk with the defendant’s parole officer with respect to the defendant and the gun. On the evening of that day, while the parole officer was interviewing the defendant, the police officers arrested the defendant. On investigation it was found that this automatic pistol was missing from the pawnshop, and the records of the shop showed that it had not been sold.

People v. Marcias

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief