People v. Ray

DORAN, J,

The appellant was convicted of burglary in the second degree, and of grand theft. During the night of August 1, 1955, the Huntington Park High School was entered, apparently through a window, and five typewriters, a small radio, and an electric coffee pot were missing the next morning.

About August 9, 1955, the defendant was arrested in Dallas, Texas, while attempting to pawn one of the typewriters. Prior to arrest,' the defendant had pawned another of the typewriters in Dallas, using the name of Bobert Jackson. The defendant had also pawned á third such typewriter at San Bernardino, California, enroute to

Dallas;

defendant admitted having sold a coffee pot for $3.00.

In explanation of the possession of the stolen property, the defendant claimed to have bought it from a merchant seaman, paying $125 therefor, but testified that the bill of sale had been taken by the Dallas police, and that the seller’s name had been forgotten. The defendant admitted two prior convictions.

At the arraignment defendant denied having money to employ an attorney and stated, “I would rather be by myself—defend myself,” to which the court replied, “I will appoint the Public Defender. ’ ’ There was no further objection by the defendant who was thereafter represented by a deputy public defender. After the trial and conviction, defendant discharged the public defender.

It is now contended that “The public defender was appointed to defend appellant contrary to the wishes of the appellant, this violates appellant’s constitutional right to defend himself and was prejudicial error.” This contention must be deemed untenable. As set forth in the respondent’s brief, it is conceded that a defendant “does have a

[259]

right to represent himself,” but to all appearances the defendant in this case' waived such right. It appears that appellant cooperated with the public defender’s office throughout the trial, and “It was not until after the appellant was found guilty that he maintained he had been deprived of his right to defend himself. ’ ’ As respondent states, “An accused cannot Remain silent gambling on his chances for a favorable verdict and then when the verdict has gone against him, raise objections of which he knew and which could have been raised during the trial.”