People v. Nolan

GRIFFIN, P. J. Defendant-appellant was charged with and convicted by a jury of selling heroin, in violation of Health and Safety Code, section 11501. He admitted three prior felony convictions; two for burglary, for which he served separate terms in Texas, and one for possession of a narcotic, for which he served a term in Chino State Prison. He was represented by counsel at the trial. He appealed from the judgment in propria persona and argues in his brief that he was entrapped by an officer into the sale. (Citing such authority as People v. Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 483 [254 P.2d 501] ; People v. Jackson, 106 Cal.App.2d 114 [234 P.2d 766] People v. Schwarts, 109 Cal.App.2d 450 [240 P.2d 1024] ; People v. Lee, 9 Cal.App.2d 99 [48 P.2d 1003]; Durham v. State 162 Tex.Crim. 25 [280 S.W.2d 737].)

It is further contended by defendant that the evidence produced did not constitute a sale. (Citing such authority as People v. Richardson, 152 Cal.App.2d 310 [313 P.2d 651] ; People v. Cohen, 118 Cal. 74 [50 P. 20] ; People v. Ballard, 145 Cal.App.2d 94 [302 P.2d 89].)

Defendant’s only other contention is that the appellate court wrongfully denied defendant’s request for appointment of counsel on appeal. (Citing such authority as In re McCoy, 32 Cal.2d 73 [194 P.2d 531] ; Johnson v. United States, 352 U.S. 565 [77 S.Ct. 550, 1 L.Ed.2d 593]; Cash v. United States, 261 F.2d 731, 735.)

Facts

One Fernando M. Maldinado was a narcotic agent employed by the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Narcotic [58]Enforcement of this state. On January 9, 1962, at 7 p.m., the agent went to the Pass Time Café at 552 Fifth Avenue in San Diego. Inside, he saw the defendant, who approached him, and they conversed about where the agent had been of recent date. Defendant left the premises. The officer went outside and stood in front of the café, and later the defendant returned and said that he had come back to see if he could show the agent a new bar. They went to the Mexicali Bar, south on the same street, and defendant told the agent that there was some “stuff” around. He asked the officer what he wanted and suggested that the officer might want some “four-barrel,” a “joint,” or some “pills,” and the agent said that he wanted some “good stuff.” It was testified that “stuff,” “four-barrel” and “good stuff” all denoted heroin and that a “joint” is a marijuana cigarette. The agent’s testimony was that defendant and he walked to a shoe-shine stand at a nearby intersection and defendant asked how many the officer wanted and the agent said “two papers” and asked how much it would be and the defendant replied “ten dollars.” The agent testified that defendant walked to the rear of the shoe-shine stand and when he returned he handed the agent two white paper-wrapped bindles and he then gave defendant the ten dollars in state funds and defendant departed.