People v. Washington

California Court of Appeal

People v. Washington

298 P.2d 879, 142 Cal. App. 2d 720, 1956 Cal. App. LEXIS 2038

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 29, 1956

DocketCrim. No. 5606

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 298 P.2d 879 (People v. Washington) 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. Washington, 298 P.2d 879, 142 Cal. App. 2d 720, 1956 Cal. App. LEXIS 2038 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

SHINN, P. J.

Pete Washington was indicted by the grand jury of Los Angeles County for violation of section 11500, Health and Safety Code in that he did sell, furnish and give away a preparation of heroin on the 12th day of April, 1954 and of a like offense committed April 16, 1954. The indictment alleged a prior conviction of an identical offense committed in June, 1951 for which the defendant served a term of imprisonment. He was represented by counsel in a jury trial, admitted the former conviction and was convicted on both counts and sentenced to state prison. No appeal was taken.

October 17, 1955, Washington filed a written motion for an order vacating the judgment. November 9, 1955, the motion was heard and was denied. We have now for consideration an appeal from that order. Appellant made no request for appointment of counsel on the appeal and has filed briefs prepared by himself. The motion states no grounds upon which the court could have been warranted in vacating the judgment. It reads in part: “Defendant contends misrepresentation on part of Counsel by not informing defendant of his right at all stages of the proceedings.” No facts are stated which lend any credence whatever to the assertion that appellant was not represented in a competent manner or that there was any failure of counsel to perform his professional duties to the fullest extent. It was also asserted that the evidence was insufficient to justify the convictions. The motion contained nothing more except general statements to the effect- that appellant was deprived of due process of law and other constitutional rights. In the absence of any showing whatever of invalidity of the judgment the [722]*722court did not err in denying the motion. Appellant’s briefs contain many factual assertions but these do not go to the merits of his motion nor can they be considered on the appeal.

The order is affirmed.

Wood (Parker), J., and Vallée, J., concurred.

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

SHINN, P. J.

Pete Washington was indicted by the grand jury of Los Angeles County for violation of section 11500, Health and Safety Code in that he did sell, furnish and give away a preparation of heroin on the 12th day of April, 1954 and of a like offense committed April 16, 1954. The indictment alleged a prior conviction of an identical offense committed in June, 1951 for which the defendant served a term of imprisonment. He was represented by counsel in a jury trial, admitted the former conviction and was convicted on both counts and sentenced to state prison. No appeal was taken.

October 17, 1955, Washington filed a written motion for an order vacating the judgment. November 9, 1955, the motion was heard and was denied. We have now for consideration an appeal from that order. Appellant made no request for appointment of counsel on the appeal and has filed briefs prepared by himself. The motion states no grounds upon which the court could have been warranted in vacating the judgment. It reads in part: “Defendant contends misrepresentation on part of Counsel by not informing defendant of his right at all stages of the proceedings.” No facts are stated which lend any credence whatever to the assertion that appellant was not represented in a competent manner or that there was any failure of counsel to perform his professional duties to the fullest extent. It was also asserted that the evidence was insufficient to justify the convictions. The motion contained nothing more except general statements to the effect- that appellant was deprived of due process of law and other constitutional rights. In the absence of any showing whatever of invalidity of the judgment the [722]*722court did not err in denying the motion. Appellant’s briefs contain many factual assertions but these do not go to the merits of his motion nor can they be considered on the appeal.

The order is affirmed.

Wood (Parker), J., and Vallée, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 P.2d 879, 142 Cal. App. 2d 720, 1956 Cal. App. LEXIS 2038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-washington-calctapp-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack