People v. Harders

California Court of Appeal Mar 27, 1962 No. Crim. 4052Published

Before: Salsman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions for robbery and conspiracy, finding no merit in his claims regarding verdict errors, evidentiary admissions, prosecutorial conduct, or ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issues

Whether a verdict mislabeling the count number for conspiracy rendered the conviction invalid.
Whether the admission of a photograph of an accomplice and physical evidence found in the defendant's apartment was erroneous.
Whether the district attorney's comment on the defendant's failure to testify constituted misconduct.
Whether the defendant was entitled to present additional evidence on appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The form of the verdict is unimportant where as here the jury has unmistakably expressed its intention to convict the defendant of the crime of conspiracy.”

“It is true that the district attorney did comment upon defendant’s failure to take the witness stand and explain or deny any of the evidence introduced against him. This was permissible and proper comment.”

“There is no justification whatsoever for defendant’s complaint that he was not carefully and properly represented by counsel in his trial.”

SALSMAN, J.

The defendant was convicted of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and conspiracy to commit robbery (Pen. Code, § 182). Three prior felony convictions were charged and admitted. The defendant appeals from the judgment.

At the trial the defendant was represented by court appointed counsel, but trial counsel refused representation of defendant on appeal; this court thereupon appointed counsel to represent defendant, and counsel so appointed made an examination of the record, communicated with defendant, and later advised both the defendant and this court there was no merit in defendant’s appeal. Counsel thereupon requested permission to withdraw and permission was granted. This court then reviewed the record and declined to appoint other counsel for defendant. (See

People

v. Brown, 55 Cal.2d 64,

[797]

73-74 [9 Cal.Rptr. 816, 357 P.2d 1072].) The defendant’s briefs are presented in propria persona.

We have examined the record and find no error requiring a reversal of the judgment.

A summary of the evidence shows that on Christmas Eve, December 24, 1960, shortly before closing time at 7 p. m., the Purity Store in the Linda Mar Shopping Center, San Mateo County, was held up. The holdup was perpetrated by two men, a younger man identified by several witnesses as Kenneth Lawrence Simon, and an older man identified by several witnesses as the appellant George Joseph Harders.

After entering the store, the two holdup men separated and the younger asked one of the clerks where the cranberry sauce was located. He took two cans and walked to the front of the store, placed the cans on a check stand and walked to the entrance of the store. Shortly thereafter, he produced a revolver and announced, “This is a stiekup.”

About the same time, the older man, the appellant, herded the rest of the help toward the front of the store. The appellant was also armed. The younger man, Simon, then ordered the receipts placed in a bag and took possession of it after this had been done. In all, the receipts consisted of about $1,800 of which some $1,300 was in cash.

People v. Harders

AI Brief

SALSMAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief