People v. Tyler
| Decision Date | 06 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 13893 |
| Citation | 65 Cal.Rptr. 907,258 Cal.App.2d 661 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Melvin Tyrone TYLER, Defendant and Appellant. |
Richard H. Levin, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Roger E. Venturi, Elliott D. McCarty, Deputy Attys., Gen., for respondent.
Melvin Tyrone Tyler appeals from a judgment of conviction of burglary (Pen.Code, § 459) pursuant to a jury verdict.
Tyler and three codefendants, Robert Earl Blakely, Alex Anderson and Artie Pullam, were jointly charged with burglary and the court appointed a public defender to represent all four codefendants at their trial. Following two days of trial, the jury found Tyler and each of his three codefendants guilty as charged. The court denied probation and Tyler was sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law. Tyler then discharged the public defender as his attorney and moved In propria persona for a new trial and a stay of execution of his sentence. The court denied these motions and Tyler appeals from the judgment.
Appellant contends that he was deprived of his right to separate counsel as guaranteed by the federal Constitution, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and that the trial court committed error in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of receiving stolen property. These contentions are without merit.
A re sume of some of the facts is as follows: Harrison Brodgen is the owner of the International Cast Products, a firm which produces die cast plumbing supplies and aircraft parts. At 12:30 a.m. on December 19, 1966, Brodgen visited the foundry to make a routine inspection of the temperature and functioning of the company's automatically controlled brass furnaces, and he found the equipment operating properly. Wen he locked up and left the foundry at about 12:40 a.m., there was on one in the plant and a pile of brass ingots lay on the floor in the center of the building.
George Kobata, who resided across the street from the foundry and operated a nursery on property adjacent to the plant, went outside to take the temperature at about 2 a.m. on December 19, 1966. A clanking noise attracted his attention and looking across the street he observed at least three persons carrying heavy metal objects through a narrow alleyway running between the foundry and the nursery building, then depositing these objects in a red automobile parked at the curb. The only other car in the area was parked some distance from the foundry. After George Kobata observed this activity for several minutes he called the police.
Officer R. J. Clifton and his partner were cruising in a radio patrol car in the vicinity of the foundry and when they received a call alerting them to watch for a suspicious vehicle, they were but one block from the foundry. They arrived at the scene in a few seconds and saw an automobile with a white top and red body parked in front of the plant. That car immediately pulled away from the curb and headed toward the patrol car. The operator of the patrol car switched on its flashing lights in an attempt to halt the approaching car. The driver, however, instead of stopping, accelerated and continued past the police car. The patrol car turned and followed with red lights and siren blasting until the red car finally stopped at the curb some distance from the foundry after running a red signal light at Western Avenue. The police officers ordered the occupants, appellant and his three codefendants, who all appeared to be 'hot and sweaty,' to get out of the car. The motor continued running and upon inspection Officer Clifton found that in place of an ignition key the termination of wires was twisted together to form an apparent ignition switch. He probed the car's interior with his flashlight and discovered that brass ingots were scattered throughout the front and rear passenger compartments. These brass ingots were taken to the police department where they later were identified by Brogden as being from the foundry. When the police called Brogden at his home about 3:10 a.m., he returned to the foundry and there noted that a large number of brass ingots were missing from the pile in the center of the building. The 85 missing brass ingots, each of which weighed approximately 18 pounds, were recovered by Brogden later from the police department. Brogden did not know any of the codefendants, nor had he given any of them permission to enter the foundry building.
Appellant did not testify at the trial, but relied upon statements by codefendant Blakely who testified that he and appellant took no part in the burglary, but were mistaken for the persons who actually participated. Blakely said that all the defendants had been drinking and playing cards together the day before the burglary and shortly before midnight they visited a nearby liquor store. Anderson supposedly went inside to purchase some liquor and as he was leaving he was approached by a stranger who asked him to haul some material. Anderson thereupon got back into the car and followed another car carrying the stranger and two other men to the foundry location. When they arrived at the foundry, the three strange men supposedly got out and began loading ingots into both cars from the alleyway adjacent to the foundry. None of the defendants loaded ingots, nor did they speak to the three strangers or discuss between themselves the transaction concerning the ingots. When the ingots were loaded the strangers told Anderson to follow them, but before he could do so they shouted '(h)ere comes a car,' jumped into their own car and quickly left. The defendants also pulled away; they did not immediately stop for the police because they did not notice the red flashing signal until the patrol car turned around and pursued the Anderson car for some distance.
Appellant contends that under the circumstances he was entitled to representation by separate counsel. The trial court, however, is required to appoint separate counsel to represent one or more codefendants only when a conflict of interests exists and is demonstrated to the trial court. (People v. Hall, 178 Cal.App.2d 878, 3 Cal.Rptr. 442; People v. Kitchens, 164 Cal.App.2d 529, 542--543, 331 P.2d 127.) It is then incumbent upon the trial judge, upon timely objection to joint representation of codefendants by a single attorney on the basis of conflicting interests, to appoint separate counsel (People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407, 416--417, 2 Cal.Rptr. 14, 348 P.2d 577; People v. Sprinkle, 201 Cal.App.2d 277, 19 Cal.Rptr. 804), but the defendant who has failed to assert this objection early in the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Morga
...Supra.) Possession of stolen property and flight with a companion committing a burglary may also be considered. (People v. Tyler (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 661, 667, 65 Cal.Rptr. 907.) One who drives another to the scene of the crime, serves as a lookout, and drives the getaway car can be an aid......
-
People v. Carter
...if he does not request separate counsel at his trial or at least indicate dissatisfaction with the attorney (People v. Tyler (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 661, 666, 65 Cal.Rptr. 907), if actually the dual representation resulted in ineffective representation of a defendant, his right to effective r......
-
People v. Brady
...p. 920, 172 Cal.Rptr. 408; cf. People v. Morga (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 200, 208, 78 Cal.Rptr. 120; see generally People v. Tyler (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 661, 667, 65 Cal.Rptr. 907; People v. Jones (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 538, 540, 42 Cal.Rptr. 925.) Such an actor may become an accomplice in a dif......
-
People v. Earl, Cr. 10991
...during the afternoon would support appellant's conviction on the theory of aiding and abetting. (Pen.Code, § 31; People v. Tyler, 258 Cal.App.2d 661, 667, 65 Cal.Rptr. 907.) Appellant's argument that there was no evidence of an intent to steal upon entry of the service station is faulty. Ap......