People v. Grey, Cr. 1536

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtGRIFFIN; COUGHLIN
Citation180 Cal.App.2d 683,4 Cal.Rptr. 561
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Harrington B. GREY, Defendant and Appellant.
Decision Date05 May 1960
Docket NumberCr. 1536

Page 561

4 Cal.Rptr. 561
180 Cal.App.2d 683
PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Harrington B. GREY, Defendant and Appellant.
Cr. 1536.
District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.
May 5, 1960.
Rehearing Denied May 23, 1960.

Page 562

[180 Cal.App.2d 684] Harrington B. Grey, in pro. per., Pioda & Leach and E. J. Leach, Jr., Salinas, for appellant.

[180 Cal.App.2d 685] Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Doris H. Maier, and Nat A. Agliano, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.

GRIFFIN, Presiding Justice.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and order denying a motion for a new trial after conviction by a jury for violation of section 470 of the Penal Code (check forgery). Defendant was charged with and admitted a prior felony conviction of forgery in Maryland in 1950.

The substance of the evidence in support of the conviction in this case is as follows: Calvin Coolidge Sandidge testified that in December 1957 he was employed by a Mr. and Mrs. Pitts as a houseman in their home in Palm Springs. About December 24, 1957, Sandidge, pursuant to defendant's request, stole some of his employers' personalized checks and turned them over to defendant. Defendant then forged the checks in the presence of Sandidge, making them payable to Willie West (a fictitious person) and forging the name of Zachary Pitts as drawer. After giving this testimony, Sandidge changed his testimony and stated that he himself had made the checks and that defendant was merely present in his home at the time Sandidge signed the checks. This latter testimony of Sandidge was immediately impeached by the district attorney when he proved

Page 563

that Sandidge had, in a preliminary hearing and in conversations with a police investigator, made prior inconsistent statements. Defendant was identified by a bank teller employed at the Palm Springs branch of the Bank of America as the person who had approached her teller's window on December 24, 1957 and presented a check payable to 'Willie West' and ostensibly drawn on the account of Zachary Pitts for $355 for payment. As identification, the defendant produced a police card containing the name 'Willie West,' and in the presence of the teller he endorsed the check 'Willie West.' He then received payment of the face amount of the check. Christine Weeks another teller at the same bank, testified that on December 24, 1957, defendant appeared at her window at the rear of the bank with a check ostensibly drawn by Zachary Pitts payable to the order of 'Willie West' for $325. He endorsed the check in her presence but she refused to cash it when he told her that he had no identification, having left his wallet in his car. Subsequently, on December 26, 1957, defendant again appeared at the teller's window of Christine Weeks and again presented the check for $325 for payment. At this time he offered a police card with [180 Cal.App.2d 686] the name 'Willie West' as identification. Miss Weeks questioned the authenticity of the check and left to confer with a bank official regarding it. While she was gone, the defendant became nervous and turned to a Mr. Driskell who was standing in line behind him and said, 'Would you tell the lady I will be back in a few minutes? I am double parked on the street.' Defendant thereupon ran out a side door of the bank, leaving the check behind. Mr. Zachary Pitts testified that the checks presented to the bank by the defendant appeared to be his personal checks but that the handwriting on the checks was not that of himself or his wife, and that at no time had he given authority to the defendant or Sandidge to write checks in his name.

Defendant testified that he did not make or utter the checks in question; that although he visited the home of Sandidge on the morning of December 24, he left therefrom without even knowing of Sandidge's possession of the checks. Defendant also testified that he was in Los Angeles on December 26, 1957, the day on which the subsequent check for $325 was presented at the bank.

On November 1, 1959, defendant requested this court to appoint an attorney to represent him on this appeal. Notice was sent to defendant's trial counsel informing her of defendant's request for court-appointed counsel to represent him on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • People v. Ortiz, Cr. 7639
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 22, 1961
    ...of the absence of a witness unless he has made a showing of due diligence to obtain the attendance of the witness. People v. Grey, 180 Cal.App.2d 683, 688, 4 Cal.Rptr. 561; People v. McShann, 177 Cal.App.2d 195, 197-200, 2 CalRptr. 71. There is no requirement that the prosecution produce as......
  • People v. Du Bose, Cr. 3923
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 13, 1970
    ...of due diligence to obtain the attendance of the witness. (People v. Ortiz, 195 Cal.App.2d 112, 15 Cal.Rptr. 398; People v. Grey, 180 Cal.App.2d 683, 688, 4 Cal.Rptr. 561; People v. McShann, 177 Cal.App.2d 195, 197--200, 2 Cal.Rptr. 71.) This, appellant has failed to Much of what we have sa......
  • People v. Hanz, Cr. 7384
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 4, 1961
    ...727; People v. Carroll, 160 Cal.App.2d 6, 324 P.2d 713) by legal means (People v. Collins, 195 Cal. 325, 233 P. 97; People v. Grey, 180 Cal.App.2d 683, 4 Cal.Rptr. 561), his expected testimony (People v. Rios, 172 Cal.App.2d 623, 342 P.2d 317) and its materiality. People v. Mellon, 40 Cal. ......
  • People v. Salcido, Cr. 1288
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 23, 1960
    ...or called to testify.' People v. McCrasky, 149 Cal.App.2d 630, 634-635, 309 P.2d 115, 118. See also People v. Grey, 180 Cal.App.2d 594, 4 Cal.Rptr. 561. Defendant's contention that the witness Cenci withheld testimony is also without merit. Defendant makes no attempt to describe the testimo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT