People v. Hyde

Citation51 Cal.2d 152,331 P.2d 42
Decision Date28 October 1958
Docket NumberCr. 6194
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jack HYDE, Defendant and Appellant.

Albert Simon, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Albert Bianchi and Elizabeth Miller, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was charged with burglary in Count I and with receiving stolen property in Count II. He pleaded not guilty to both counts but admitted two prior convictions of robbery in California in 1947 and 1952. The jury found him guilty of receiving stolen goods and acquitted him on the burglary count. His motions for a new trial and for probation were denied. He appeals from the judgment sentencing him to the state prison for the term prescribed by law and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The public defender represented defendant at the trial but did not undertake the prosecution of his appeal. (See Gov. Code, § 27706.) Defendant requested the District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three, in which the appeal was pending, to appoint an attorney to represent him, claiming that he was without funds to employ counsel. That court referred the request to the Los Angeles Bar Association Committee on Criminal Appeals, which in turn referred the matter to one of its attorney members. This attorney made a written report to the court setting forth that he had examined the record and that in his opinion it disclosed no meritorious ground of appeal. The court so advised the defendant and extended his time to file a brief. Defendant prepared and filed a brief in propria persona. The District Court of Appeal made an independent examination of the record and affirmed the judgment. 317 P.2d 73.

This court ordered a hearing on its own motion in this case to consider the question of the appointment of counsel on appeal for an indigent defendant who has been convicted of a crime.

It is our opinion that appellate courts, upon application of an indigent defendant who has been convicted of a crime, should either (1) appoint an attorney to represent him on appeal or (2) make an independent investigation of the record and determine whether it would be of advantage to the defendant or helpful to the appellate court to have counsel appointed. This investigation should be made solely by the justices of the appellate courts. After such investigation, appellate courts should appoint counsel if in their opinion it would be helpful to the defendant or the court, and should deny the appointment of counsel only if in their judgment such appointment would be of no value to either the defendant or the court.

After a hearing was ordered by this court in this case, counsel was appointed for defendant and briefs were submitted. At the trial Officers Johnson and Atkisson testified that they were in a patrol car at about 11 p. m. on August 16, 1956. They observed two cars, one closely following the other, force a pedestrian in a cross-walk to stop to avoid being hit. The officers followed the two cars and signalled defendant to the side of the road. Officer Johnson stepped out of the patrol car, and Officer Atkisson pursued the other car. Defendant stepped out of his car leaving the door open. Officer Johnson flashed his light into the back seat of the car and saw six gunny sacks and a camera protruding from one of the sacks. He asked defendant, 'what do you have in the gunny sack?' Defendant replied that he was moving and that the sacks contained personal belongings. Officer Johnson then stated that they looked like cameras and defendant said that they were cameras, that he was a camera salesman. Officer Johnson then stated that it seemed very odd that a man in the camera business would be carrying cameras around in a gunny sack in the back end of his car. Defendant replied, 'Well, there is no use in talking about it here.' Then Officer Johnson told defendant that he thought he was a burglar because a few nights ago a Hollywood camera store had been burglarized and $20,000 worth of camera equipment had been taken. Officer Johnson then placed defendant under arrest on a charge of burglary.

Officer Johnson called to Officer Atkisson that he thought he had a burglar. Both officers flashed their lights through the window on the six gunny sacks. Officer Atkisson asked defendant, 'What are you doing with these articles in your car?' Defendant replied, 'I have nothing to say. Take me to the station.' Defendant and his car were then taken to the police station. Enroute Officer Johnson asked defendant where he had obtained the cameras. Defendant replied, 'A fellow had given them to me.' When Officer Johnson asked 'Who?', defendant said, 'Well, I would be a raving idiot to tell you who. I don't want to talk to you. I want to talk to someone higher up who could do something good.' At the station the camera equipment was examined and listed by serial number and description. Officer Johnson identified a Revere stereo camera, a Reflecta camera, and a Dittar camera as part of the contents of the gunny sacks taken from defendant's car.

David Kaner testified that he owned a camera shop in Hollywood and that it was locked at the close of business on August 10, 1956. When he arrived at his store on the morning of August 11, 1956, he found that a hold had been broken through the wall near the rear of the store and camera equipment valued at $13,500 had been taken. He identified the Revere, Reflecta and Dittar cameras as part of the equipment taken from his store. The three cameras were admitted into evidence without objection.

Officer Northrup testified that he questioned defendant at the station regarding the cameras and the burglary and that defendant replied: 'I cannot tell you anything about the burglary except that I did not pull it. All I was doing was delivering that stuff for somebody else. I was going to get a couple bills for my end of it. I cannot tell you who I picked it up from or who I was going to deliver it to.'

Joe Larios testified on behalf of the defendant. He stated that he asked defendant to deliver some gunny sacks and that defendant was to receive $10. In the evening on August 16, 1956, defendant parked his car next to the hotel where Larios was staying. Larios loaded the gunny sacks while defendant got a pack of cigarettes. Larios was loading the last two sacks when defendant returned. Defendant asked him what was in the sacks, and Larios replied that they contained cameras. Larios instructed the defendant to deliver the cameras to a Red Cole at a certain bar. Larios testified that he had obtained the camera equipment about three days before from a Tom McGowan. Larios knew the cameras...

To continue reading

Request your trial
78 cases
  • People v. Cooper, Cr. 4233
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 24, 1965
    ...not raise the question for the first time on appeal. (People v. Richardson (1959) 51 Cal.2d 445, 447, 334 P.2d 573; People v. Hyde (1958) 51 Cal.2d 152, 157, 331 P.2d 42; People v. Hunter (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 385, 394, 33 Cal.Rptr. 15; People v. Gurrola (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 349, 354, 32 C......
  • People v. Curcio
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 3, 1967
    ...cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. (In re Lessard, 62 Cal.2d 497, 503, 42 Cal.Rptr. 583, 399 P.2d 39; People v. Hyde, 51 Cal.2d 152, 157, 331 P.2d 42. As to the legality of the search; a police officer may make a lawful arrest without a warrant when he has reasonable cause to be......
  • People v. Brown
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • December 22, 1960
    ...that representation by counsel would be of no benefit to defendant or to the court, and denied the request. See People v. Hyde, 51 Cal.2d 152, 154, 331 P.2d 42. Defendant prepared and filed a brief in propria persons. The court affirmed the judgment. People v. Brown, Cal.App., 3 Cal.Rptr. 2......
  • People v. Willard
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 22, 1965
    ...he saw and heard while looking through an open door and a window.5 The same rule applies to windows of automobiles. (People v. Hyde (1958) 51 Cal.2d 152, 157, 331 P.2d 42; People v. Terry (1964) 61 Cal.2d 137, 152, 37 Cal.Rptr. 605, 390 P.2d 381; People v. Wright (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 35, 3......
  • 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