People v. Hanna
THE COURT.
Tuck Hanna was indicted by the" grand jury for the sale of heroin in seven counts under the' name “John Doe” Tuck. "When, upon arraignment, defendant stated his true name was “Tuck Hanna” the court ordered the indictment amended accordingly. The indictment was further amended on motion of the People to allege two prior convictions as to defendant Hanna. Defendant was represented by the public defender and pleaded not guilty and denied the prior convictions. Defendant personally and all counsel waived trial by jury. The cause was submitted on the testimony contained in the transcript of the proceedings before the grand jury with each side reserving the right to offer additional evidence.
At the commencement of the trial the judge directed that the record show that pursuant to the stipulation he had read the transcript of the testimony taken at the grand jury hearing. Additional evidence offered consisted of the testimony of two police officers. Defendant testified in his own behalf. Defendant was found guilty on all counts and the prior convictions charged were found to be true. Defendant’s motion for new trial was denied, probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law as to each count, the counts to run concurrently with each other and concurrently with the remainder of the sentence for the offense on which he had been on parole.
Defendant applied for appointment of counsel to assist him on the appeal. This court, having made an independent investigation of the record and having determined it would be neither advantageous to defendant nor helpful to the court to have counsel appointed, denied the application, whereupon defendant prosecutes this appeal in propria persona. Defendant was notified and given ample time to file a brief. None has been filed; however, we have given the appeal full consideration.
There was evidence of the following facts:
An undercover police officer of the City of Los Angeles assigned to the narcotic detail testified that he knew defendant by the name “Tuck” and that defendant Tuck Hanna.is the person identified by him as “Tuck” or “John Doe Tuck” in the proceedings before the grand jury. Accompanied by an-
[229]
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)