People v. Baldwin

California Court of Appeal

People v. Baldwin

228 Cal. App. 2d 840, 39 Cal. Rptr. 355, 1964 Cal. App. LEXIS 1146

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 22, 1964

DocketCrim. No. 7014

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 Cal. App. 2d 840 (People v. Baldwin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Baldwin, 228 Cal. App. 2d 840, 39 Cal. Rptr. 355, 1964 Cal. App. LEXIS 1146 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

HERNDON, J.

Our original opinion in this case was filed on April 10, 1961. For a statement of the factual background and the legal issues presented, reference is made thereto. (See People v. Baldwin, 191 Cal.App.2d 83 [12 Cal.Rptr. 365].)

In accordance with the procedure formerly followed, we made an examination of the record for the purpose of determining whether or not counsel should be appointed to represent appellant on his appeal. We then concluded that such appointment would be neither advantageous to appellant nor helpful to this court. However, upon motion of appellant following the decision in Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 [83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811], the remittitur heretofore filed was ordered recalled, the judgment was vacated, and present counsel was appointed.

Although appointed counsel has fulfilled his duties conscientiously and with commendable zeal, his statement filed herein indicates that he has been unable to find any error or inaccuracy in any of the statements or rulings made in our decision and that he is unable to suggest any additional assignments of error. Insofar as the assignments of error considered in our original opinion may be deemed reasserted on [841]*841this second hearing, our decision heretofore rendered is hereby adopted in its entirety as the present judgment of the court.

The judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed.¹

Fox, P. J., and Roth, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HERNDON, J.

Our original opinion in this case was filed on April 10, 1961. For a statement of the factual background and the legal issues presented, reference is made thereto. (See People v. Baldwin, 191 Cal.App.2d 83 [12 Cal.Rptr. 365].)

In accordance with the procedure formerly followed, we made an examination of the record for the purpose of determining whether or not counsel should be appointed to represent appellant on his appeal. We then concluded that such appointment would be neither advantageous to appellant nor helpful to this court. However, upon motion of appellant following the decision in Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 [83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811], the remittitur heretofore filed was ordered recalled, the judgment was vacated, and present counsel was appointed.

Although appointed counsel has fulfilled his duties conscientiously and with commendable zeal, his statement filed herein indicates that he has been unable to find any error or inaccuracy in any of the statements or rulings made in our decision and that he is unable to suggest any additional assignments of error. Insofar as the assignments of error considered in our original opinion may be deemed reasserted on [841]*841this second hearing, our decision heretofore rendered is hereby adopted in its entirety as the present judgment of the court.

The judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed.¹

Fox, P. J., and Roth, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 Cal. App. 2d 840, 39 Cal. Rptr. 355, 1964 Cal. App. LEXIS 1146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-baldwin-calctapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack