People v. Mathews

HERNDON, J. After a nonjury trial, appellant was found guilty of selling marijuana in violation of section 11531 of the Health and Safety Code as alleged in the two counts of the indictment. At the trial, he was represented by counsel. On this appeal from the judgment of conviction, he appears in propria persona and in his brief he advances the following contentions: (1) That the evidence was not sufficient to support the judgment; (2) that the legal representation afforded him by his attorney in the trial court was so inadequate and his said attorney was so incompetent or disinterested that appellant’s constitutional right to representation by counsel was not fulfilled; (3) that he was denied a fair trial in that questions propounded to him by the trial judge were improper and betrayed the judge’s prejudice against him..

Statement of Facts

In regard to the first count alleged in the indictment, the record discloses that on January 26, 1961, James T. Johnson, a member of the Los Angeles Police Department assigned to the Narcotic Detail, received a certain telephone number from one Robert Watford who told him to call the indicated number and ask to speak to “Rabbit.” On the next day at approximately 10:30 a. m., Officer Johnson dialed the number which Watford had given him. Upon receiving an answer, Johnson'said, “Rabbit, this is Williams. Did Bob call you back?” The man answering replied, “No, man, I got the stuff and he.never showed up;'. . .” Officer Johnson then said, “I called him but he' won’t be back until later on, so I’ll come over and take care of business.” The other party said, “All right.” ’ '

■ Officer Johnson immediately drove to 532 West 50th Street and knocked on the door of Apartment 308. Someone inside asked, “Who is it?” Johnson replied, “Williams.” Thereupon, appellant opened the door. As the officer walked in, he asked, “Did Bob show up yet?” Appellant answered “No” and then went into the kitchen. He returned shortly and [546]handed a paper hindle containing a green leafy substance to the officer who, in turn, gave appellant $6.50.

Immediately thereafter, the officer drove to the Police Administration Building where he marked the paper package, placed it in an envelope and sealed it with his right thumb print. The envelope was then transferred to the crime laboratory for chemical analysis.

Relating to the transaction involved in the second count of the indictment, it appears from the record that on February 2, 1961, at approximately 9:15 a. m., Officer Johnson dialed the telephone number previously indicated and asked to speak to “Rabbit.” Thereupon the party who had answered stated that he was “Rabbit.” Johnson inquired, “Can you do what you did for me the other day?” The other party replied, “Yes, but hurry up because I’m getting ready to go downtown. ’ ’