People v. Mike

MUSSELL, J.

Appellant was charged with the wilful, un lawful and felonious possession of the narcotic marijuana in violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code. He admitted two prior felony convictions charged in the information. He was found guilty by a jury of possession of narcotic, to wit, marijuana, and it was adjudged that he be punished by imprisonment in the state’s prison. It is stated in appellant’s notice of appeal that “he will take, appeal in forma pauperis, from the verdict of the Superior Court of San Diego county. ...” No appeal lies from a “verdict.”

(People

v.

Goldstein,

136 Cal.App.2d 778, 793 [289 P.2d 581].) However, appellant was acting in propria persona and notices of appeal should be liberally construed to permit, if possible, a hearing on the merits.

(Collins

v.

City & County of San Francisco,

112 Cal.App.2d 719, 722 [247 P.2d 362].) We will, therefore, in the interest of justice, review the merits of defendant’s appeal.

(People

v.

Robinson,

43 Cal.2d 143, 146 [271 P.2d 872].)

On October 26, 1957, Champion Williams entered a room which he had previously rented to the appellant and found therein, under the seat of a chair, three packages containing

[468]

marijuana. The packages were wrapped in a newspaper bearing the date October 20,1957, which was the date on which appellant had rented the room. Williams telephoned the police and when they arrived, appellant ran from the dining room into the kitchen and attempted to leave the premises through the back door. He was placed under arrest and his room was searched by the officers. In addition to the packages found by Williams, the officers found an empty tobacco can which appellant stated that he had used to “put things in.” Particles of marijuana were found in this can, in the debris removed from the pockets of the clothing worn by appellant at the time of his arrest, and in the debris removed from the pockets of clothing hanging in appellant’s room. Appellant stated that no one else had worn the clothing since he had acquired it a few months previously and that it had all been cleaned several times since its acquisition. He also stated he had not used any marijuana since he “got out of the pen,” where he had smoked some during his term. Appellant also claimed that he was being “framed” by his landlady, Mrs. Williams.