People v. Pitts

California Court of Appeal Nov 14, 1961 No. Crim. 7536Published

Before: Jefferson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for issuing checks without sufficient funds and that the use of certified records to prove prior convictions did not violate due process. The court further affirmed the denial of the defendant's request for appointed counsel on appeal.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for violating Penal Code section 476a.
Whether the defendant was denied due process regarding the proof of prior convictions.
Whether the defendant was entitled to appointed counsel on appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The evidence in this case is sufficient to sustain the trial court in its findings that issuing a check without sufficient funds had been committed.”

“Section 969b of the Penal Code, which makes certain prison records or certified copies thereof evidence of a prior conviction, does not violate the due process clause of the state and federal Constitutions.”

JEFFERSON, J.

On October 10, 1960, defendant was found guilty of three counts of issuing a check without sufficient funds in violation of section 476a Penal Code. It was also alleged in the information that defendant had suffered two previous convictions of issuing checks without sufficient funds. Trial by jury having been duly waived, defendant was tried by court and was represented by counsel. He was found guilty of violating section 476a of the Penal Code. The court found the priors as alleged were true. Probation was denied. Defendant was sentenced to the state prison on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. He appeals in propria persona from the judgment. In defendant’s opening brief, he makes reference to the ease of

People

Hyde,

51 Cal.2d 152, 154 [331 P.2d 42], from which we conclude that he may be raising the point of having been denied counsel on appeal. In this respect it should be noted that the defendant filed a motion for appointment of counsel to represent defendant on appeal in Division Two of the Second Appellate District of this court, to which consideration of this appeal had originally been assigned.

On May 12, 1961, that division of this court made the following order:

“This court, having considered defendant’s application for the appointment of counsel to represent him on the appeal herein, and having made an independent investigation of the record, has determined that it would be neither advantageous to the defendant nor helpful to this court to have counsel appointed. The application is therefore denied. Appellant granted to June 12,1961, to file appellant’s opening brief.”

Thereafter on September 26, 1961, the appeal of this ease was transferred to this division. We have determined that

[843]

it would be neither advantageous to defendant, nor helpful to this court to have counsel appointed, in view of consideration given defendant’s motion by Division Two of this court and our own independent investigation of the record, which has led us to the same conclusion.

People v. Pitts

AI Brief

JEFFERSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief