People v. Morgan

Me COMB, J. Prom a judgment of guilty on four counts of issuing checks without sufficient funds, with intent to defraud, and one count of grand theft, defendant appeals. There are also appeals from orders denying (1) a motion for a new trial, and (2) a motion in arrest of judgment.

Defendant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment but claims that: (a) the court erred in denying his motion for a continuance, thus forcing [98]him to trial without allowing him an opportunity to consult with his counsel and prepare a defense;1

(b) The court had no jurisdiction to try defendant since the trial did not commence within 60 days from the time that the informations were filed against him;2 (c) The court erred in allowing Mrs. Farr to continue as a juror after it appeared that her husband was employed by the Los Angeles City School Board ;3 (d) The trial judge erred in allowing the district attorney to state to the jury facts not shown by the evidence;4 (e) The trial court erred in referring defendant’s case to the probation department and continuing the time of sentence until after receipt of the probation officer’s report;5 (f) The trial judge erred in ordering that two informations filed against defendant be consolidated for trial;6 and [99](g) Defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial for the reasons previously stated.7

Article VI, section 4% of the Constitution of the State of California reads as follows: “No judgment shall be set aside or new trial granted, in any case, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or of the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any matter of pleading, or for any error as to any matter of procedure, unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” (Italics added.)

We have examined the record and are of the opinion the record sustains the verdict of guilty on each count and there has not been a miscarriage of justice in the present case. Hence, since it needs no citation of authorities to support the thesis that this court is bound by the mandate of the Constitution of the State of California, it follows the judgment and order must be affirmed. (People v. Scott, 112 Cal.App.2d 350, 352 [1] [246 P.2d 122], hearing denied by the Supreme Court.)