People v. Kent

NOURSE, P. J.

Defendant appeals in propria persona from a judgment on a verdict finding him guilty on three counts of robbery of the first degree. He also appeals from the order denying him a new trial.

In his opening brief the appellant did not question the sufficiency of the evidence on any one of the counts. Two points were raised by him: (1) The sufficiency of the allegations of the information, and (2) the propriety of the jury’s finding of first degree robbery in view of no specific allegation of the degree charged.

(1) The first count of the information accused defendant “of a felony, to wit, robbery, in that ... he robbed . . .” of “Thirty-three dollars. ...” The other two counts

[78]

were in similar form. Appellant argues that this is insufficient since it does not plead the elements of the crime listed in section 211 of the Penal Code. The same question was before us in

People

v. Summers, 107 Cal.App. 250, 252 [290 P. 464], where this court said: “It is argued that the indictment upon which appellants were tried charges larceny only and is therefore insufficient to support a verdict of robbery. The indictment is in the short form prescribed by section 951 of the Penal Code, as amended in 1927 (Stats. 1927, p. 1043). It charges that ‘on or about the 17th day of April, 1929, . . . they

robbed

J. H. Brown, etc.’ Indictments similar in form have been approved in

People

v.

Fallai,

99 Cal.App. 297 [278 P. 449], and

People

v.

Sampsell et al.,

104 Cal.App. 431 [286 P. 434].” See

People

v.