People v. Mays

California Court of Appeal

People v. Mays

228 Cal. App. 2d 842, 40 Cal. Rptr. 619, 1964 Cal. App. LEXIS 1148

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 22, 1964

DocketCrim. No. 7743

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 228 Cal. App. 2d 842 (People v. Mays) 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. Mays, 228 Cal. App. 2d 842, 40 Cal. Rptr. 619, 1964 Cal. App. LEXIS 1148 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

HERNDON, J.

Our original opinion in this ease was filed July 23, 1962; rehearing was denied August 20, 1962, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 26, 1962. For a statement of the factual background and the legal issues presented, reference is made thereto. (People v. Mays, 205 Cal.App.2d 798 [23 Cal.Rptr. 605].)

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 [843]*843appointment would be neither advantageous to appellant nor helpful to this court. However, following the decisions in Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 [83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811] and Mays v. California, 374 U.S. 490 [83 S.Ct. 1883, 10 L.Ed.2d 1047], the remittitur heretofore issued was ordered recalled and present counsel was appointed.

Although appointed counsel has fulfilled his duties conscientiously and with commendable zeal, his brief filed herein merely reurges certain of the same contentions heretofore rejected by the trial court, this court and our Supreme Court upon petition for hearing. We have reconsidered these assignments of error, as well as those urged initially by appellant and passed upon in our prior opinion, and find nothing requiring a modification of this opinion. Therefore, our decision heretofore rendered is adopted in its entirety as the present judgment of the court.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

A petition for a rehearing was denied August 14, 1964, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 18, 1964. Mosk, J., did not participate therein.

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

HERNDON, J.

Our original opinion in this ease was filed July 23, 1962; rehearing was denied August 20, 1962, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 26, 1962. For a statement of the factual background and the legal issues presented, reference is made thereto. (People v. Mays, 205 Cal.App.2d 798 [23 Cal.Rptr. 605].)

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 [843]*843appointment would be neither advantageous to appellant nor helpful to this court. However, following the decisions in Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 [83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811] and Mays v. California, 374 U.S. 490 [83 S.Ct. 1883, 10 L.Ed.2d 1047], the remittitur heretofore issued was ordered recalled and present counsel was appointed.

Although appointed counsel has fulfilled his duties conscientiously and with commendable zeal, his brief filed herein merely reurges certain of the same contentions heretofore rejected by the trial court, this court and our Supreme Court upon petition for hearing. We have reconsidered these assignments of error, as well as those urged initially by appellant and passed upon in our prior opinion, and find nothing requiring a modification of this opinion. Therefore, our decision heretofore rendered is adopted in its entirety as the present judgment of the court.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

A petition for a rehearing was denied August 14, 1964, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 18, 1964. Mosk, J., did not participate therein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 Cal. App. 2d 842, 40 Cal. Rptr. 619, 1964 Cal. App. LEXIS 1148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mays-calctapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack