People v. Watts
| Decision Date | 22 July 1954 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 970 |
| Citation | 272 P.2d 814,126 Cal.App.2d 659 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPE v. WATTS. |
Richard Watts, in pro. per.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, for respondent.
Defendant, who was represented by an attorney at all stages of the proceedings, was convicted by a jury of the crime of violating section 476a of the Penal Code in issuing and passing a check in the sum of $61.50 on the Lovely Lady Shop, in Colton, without having any funds in the bank to meet the check at the time. He admitted two prior convictions of felonies.
About 5:30 p. m. on October 19, 1953, defendant appeared at the dress shop with a woman with whom he had been living. They selected several garments and defendant gave his personal check on a bank in Colton in payment thereof. The banker testified that defendant had never had an account or credit with that bank.
The only question presented to the jury was whether defendant informed the dress shop clerk that he had no account at the time but expected to have one in a short time, and asked her to notify him if it was not paid upon presentation.
The clerk testified that about closing time the defendant wrote out the check in payment of the merchandise; that she remarked: 'Oh, a check at this time of the night?' And defendant said: 'Sure, haven't you ever seen a check before?' and that she replied: 'Yes--but at this time of the night it is certainly irregular'; that he assured her it would not 'bounce' and that all the money he had was in that bank; that he had just arrived in Colton from the East and had his money transferred here; that she asked for identification and the defendant presented his driving license from Ohio, and another card with his picture on it; that nothing was said by the defendant about not having any account with the bank and he made no request to hold the check.
Defendant testified he told the clerk he intended to pay for the merchandise by check; that he did not have the cash; that the clerk asked him if he had money in the bank and he told her he did not know whether the money would be in the bank yet, but he was expecting some money from his father and also some from back home from a loan on his automobile and it should be there within the next two days and that he would give her his name and address and she could notify him if the check was not paid and he would then see that it was taken care of immediately. He then testified that the clerk took the check; that he had four days previously attempted to make some arrangements to borrow money on his car and expected the loan to go through any time to meet the check, but that the loan was not accepted.
At the time of defendant's apprehension on October 23rd, when interviewed by an officer, defendant stated that he had written the check in question and also some other checks, and that he had no account with the bank but hoped to sell his car and obtain a loan on it and pay off the checks. Defendant at that time made no statement to the officer that the clerk in the store here in question was informed by him that he had no account in the bank or that he expected to have money therein within the next few days. Defendant admitted on cross-examination that he did not mention this claimed fact to the officer.
Defendant, in propria persona, appealed from the judgment of conviction and order denying a new trial, and contends generally: (1) that too great a delay resulted after his detention before he was taken before the magistrate for arraignment. (2) That he was erroneously denied a motion to have his attorney relieved as his counsel because 'he was not co-operative', and that by reason thereof his constitutional rights were violated. (3) That he was misinformed of his rights when his counsel told him that if he admitted the prior felonies they could not be brought up at the trial before the jury, but that on cross-examination the district attorney nevertheless asked him if he had not been convicted of these same felonies. (4) That the district attorney maliciously questioned the defendant in respect thereto. (5) That no felonious intent to defraud was shown by the evidence in reference to the passing of the check in question and that defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Burnham
...697, 707, 171 P.2d 737, 742. The trial court could, and did, disbelieve appellant's testimony as to her intent. People v. Watts, 126 Cal.App.2d 659, 663, 272 P.2d 814. The evidence is amply sufficient to warrant the inferences that appellant knowingly filed a false claim for the purpose of ......
-
People v. McCrasky
...of any such delay was made in the trial court. Such a complaint may not be made for the first time on appeal. People v. Watts, 126 Cal.App.2d 659, 662, 272 P.2d 814. Moreover, the violation of appellant's rights because of failure to observe the provisions of Penal Code, § 825 does not requ......
-
People v. Roberts
...and had there been such it would have been unjustified. (See People v. Ruiz, 103 Cal.App.2d 146, 149, 229 P.2d 73; People v. Watts, 126 Cal.App.2d 659, 662, 272 P.2d 814; People v. Delasantos, 172 Cal.App.2d 213, 217, 342 P.2d Appellant has produced nothing to support his statement to the e......
-
People v. Blankenship
...of any such delay was made in the trial court. Such a complaint may not be urged for the first time on appeal (People v. Watts, 126 Cal.App.2d 659, 662, 272 P.2d 814; People v. McCrasky, 149 Cal.App.2d 630, 637, 309 P.2d 115). As was said by this court in People v. McCrasky, supra, 149 Cal.......