People v. Norris

[856]

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment of guilty of robbery in the first degree after trial before the court without a jury, defendant appeals. There is also an appeal from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (respondent) the facts are:

On June 6, 1953, defendant, armed with a knife, together with two other men took from the complaining witness, Theodore Bradley, his wallet without his permission.

Questions:

First:

Was there substantial evidence to support the judgment of guilty?

Yes.

The record discloses that Mr. Bradley identified defendant as the man who had robbed him of his wallet while armed with a knife. This evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.

(People

v.

Tedesco,

1 Cal.2d 211, 219 [1] [34 P.2d 467].)

There is nothing inherently improbable in the testimony of Mr. Bradley. Therefore further discussion of the evidence ■ would serve no useful purpose.

People

v.

Braun,

14 Cal.2d 1 [92 P.2d 402], relied on by defendant, is not applicable to the facts of the present case for in such case the appellate court reversed the conviction upon the ground of misconduct of the district attorney and not upon the weakness of the identification of the defendant.

People

v.

Graziano,

83 Cal.App.2d 701 [189 P.2d 518], relied on by defendant, is likewise inapplicable to the facts in the instant ease for the reason that in such case the appellate court held that the evidence did not connect the defendant with the crime with which he was charged.