People v. McCoy

THE COURT. Tony Cornelius McCoy was accused by information in Counts I and II of the crime of forgery in violation of Penal Code section 470, and in Count III of attempted grand theft' in violation of Penal Code sections 487, subdivision 2, and 664. The defendant chose to represent himself, plead not guilty, and in a jury trial was found guilty on all three counts. Probation was denied and sentence to state prison imposed. He appeals in propria persona from the judgment. It was due to the insistence of defendant that he was unrepresented by counsel in the trial. The court urged him to accept assistance of counsel and he steadfastly refused.

Defendant applied for appointment of counsel on appeal; we read the record, denied the application, notified the defendant, allowing him time for filing a brief and none has been filed.

There was evidence of the following facts: On January 30,1961, the defendant entered the Broadway-Washington branch of the Bank of America and expressed a desire to open a checking account. He presented a cheek for $350 drawn on [171]another branch of the Bank of America dated January 30, 1961, “Pay to the Order of Tony C. McCoy” and purportedly signed by one Norman Scott. The defendant endorsed the check, deposited $150 in the new account and received $200 back in cash. Dr. Norman Scott testified that while the check bore his account number and name he neither drew the check himself nor authorized anyone else to draw it nor was the signature in his handwriting; he did not know the defendant. Some two months prior to the incident in question someone had stolen this cheek, among other blank checks, from his desk.

On January 31, 1961, defendant returned to the bank and cashed a similar cheek for $250. Dr. Scott testified that this cheek was also unauthorized and was among blank checks stolen from his desk. The defendant admitted that he had endorsed and cashed both checks and was positively identified by the two bank tellers.

The defendant testified in his own behalf admitting having endorsed and cashed the checks but stating that the checks had been given to him by a person representing himself as Dr. Scott in payment for some work he had performed. He denied having written the signature of Dr. Scott on the instruments but was unable to state just who had written them.

The evidence above recited is sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction of forgery. (People v. Bartges, 126 Cal.App.2d 763, 771 [273 P.2d 49]; People v. Gutkowsky, 100 Cal.App.2d 635, 639 [234 P.2d 95].)