People v. Markos, Cr. 5632
| Citation | 146 Cal.App.2d 82,303 P.2d 363 |
| Decision Date | 16 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5632 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Frank MARKOS, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
Gladys Towles Root and Eugene V. McPherson, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Frank F. Markos was charged with four violations of Penal Code Section 476a () and with two prior convictions of the same offense. He pleaded not guilty and denied the former convictions. Trial was to the court. The evidence consisted of that received at the preliminary hearing and additional evidence introduced at the trial. The court found him guilty on each count and found the prior convictions to be true. He appeals from the judgment. Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the judgment and that the court erred in denying him a continuance to secure the attendance of a material witness for the defense.
There was evidence of the following facts: Defendant was one of the owners of the Ferris Charles Exploration Company, which was formed in late April or early May, 1955. Its business was to uranium and other precious minerals. Defendant maintained a checking account in the name of Charles Exploration Company at the Inglewood Branch of the Bank of America. The authorized drawer was Ferris Charles, a name used by defendant. The account was closed by the bank on May 27, 1955, after it had been attached. The balance prior to the attachment was $6.14. Defendant made no arrangements for credit with the bank and there was no subsequent deposit to the account. The bank's policy is to send written notice to a depositor if his account is closed due to an attachment.
Arthur Ayvazian, a grocery clerk, cashed for defendant a $125 check of the Charles Exploration Company, dated May 30, 1955. The check was signed 'Ferris Charles' and drawn on the above mentioned bank. Stanley Slago, a waiter at a restaurant, cashed for defendant a $100 check of the Charles Exploration Company, dated June 9, 1955, signed and drawn as above. Stanley Price cashed for defendant a $100 check of the Charles Exploration Company, dated June 9, 1955, likewise signed and drawn as above. George Waidner accepted from defendant a check of the Charles Exploration Company in the amount of $304.58, dated June 18, 1955, also signed and drawn as above. The check was in payment for a scintillator used in prospecting for uranium. The four checks were dishonored by defendant's bank.
Defendant testified that he had agreed with the Otay Agricultural Corporation to run tests for mineral content on land owned by it in San Diego County. He was in continuous telephone contact with the corporation's president, Stephen Birch, who was in New York. Markos worked for Birch until about June 28, 1955. During May and the early part of June, Birch was to deposit $350 per day for sixteen days into defendant's bank account for work Markos had already done. Birch told him over the telephone that the money had been deposited. Markos assumed that it had been. He never received a statement from the bank and thought the money was there. He admitted drawing the checks. He stated that he talked to Birch about a dozen times after his arrest, asking Birch to come to California to straighten the matter up, and Birch told him he would come to California after January 1st to close up the corporation's books for the year and that he would settle with defendant at that time.
On cross-examination Markos admitted telling the police when he was arrested that he had no idea how much money he had in the bank. Robert Leonard, an employe of defendant, testified that he overheard a telephone conversation between defendant and a man he understood to be Birch in the early part of May, 1955, during which Birch stated that some money would be deposited to defendant's account.
Hugh E. Brown, a police officer for the City of Los Angeles, testified on behalf of defendant. He stated that he was one of the investigating officers in the case and that he talked with Markos at the time of his arrest on August 5, 1955. Defendant asked to make a long distance telephone call to an unidentified person whose name 'would be brought out at the proper time' who was supposed to have made deposits to his account, but had failed to do so. Markos told Brown that he wanted to find out why the deposits were not made. He admitted to Brown that he did not know how much money he had in the bank when he drew the checks.
The first assignment of error to be considered is insufficiency of the evidence to show that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Salcido
...to permit taking depositions of certain witnesses when record was silent as to substance of intended testimony]; People v. Markos (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 82, 85, 303 P.2d 363 [trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing an additional postponement when the defendant had the benefit of......
-
People v. Schmitt
...examinations. Defendant's admissions could be considered by the jury in relation to the issue of his good faith. People v. Markos, 146 Cal.App.2d 82, 85, 303 P.2d 363. In addition, the jury could also consider the fact that defendant made a number of diagnoses which he knew were contrary to......
-
People v. Wilson
... ... (People v. Justice, 211 Cal.App.2d 660, 665, 27 Cal.Rptr. 465; People v. Markos, 146 Cal.App.2d 82, 86, 303 P.2d 363.) Section 1050 of the Penal Code states in relevant part: 'No continuance of a criminal trial shall be granted ... ...
-
People v. Overton
...be upheld on appeal, absent an abuse of such discretion. People v. Williams, 168 Cal.App.2d 624, 627, 336 P.2d 245; People v. Markos, 146 Cal.App.2d 82, 86, 303 P.2d 363. Appellant's basic objections to the probation report are that it contained hearsay and related his connection with his c......