People v. Weston

California Court of Appeal

People v. Weston

330 P.2d 828, 164 Cal. App. 2d 619, 1958 Cal. App. LEXIS 1653

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 28, 1958

DocketCrim. No. 2845

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 330 P.2d 828 (People v. Weston) 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. Weston, 330 P.2d 828, 164 Cal. App. 2d 619, 1958 Cal. App. LEXIS 1653 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHOTTKY, J.

Defendant above named was charged with a violation of section 503 of the Vehicle Code, the information alleging that he did “take a motor vehicle not his own, to wit, the motor vehicle owned by Doyle Crane, without the consent of the said Doyle Crane and with intent to temporarily deprive the said Doyle Crane of the possession of said motor vehicle.” He was also charged with a prior conviction of a similar offense. He pleaded not guilty to the offense charged, but admitted the prior conviction. Following a trial, at which he was represented by the public defender, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Judgment was pronounced and defendant has appealed from the judgment.

Upon appellant’s request that an attorney be appointed to represent him upon the appeal, the court appointed Mr. Douglas C. Busath of the Sacramento Bar. Mr. Busath has informed the court that after a thorough review of the record it is his opinion that appellant had a fair trial and there are no meritorious grounds of appeal.

However, we have made a careful study of the entire record and agree that the appeal is without any merit whatever. The evidence is overwhelming that appellant took an automobile belonging to Doyle Crane in the city of Ukiah and, without the owner’s permission, drove it to Clear Lake in Lake County where he was apprehended while in possession of the automobile. The record shows that appellant was ably defended; that he received a fair trial and that the evidence fully supports the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

Van Dyke, P. J., and Warne, J. pro tem.,

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

SCHOTTKY, J.

Defendant above named was charged with a violation of section 503 of the Vehicle Code, the information alleging that he did “take a motor vehicle not his own, to wit, the motor vehicle owned by Doyle Crane, without the consent of the said Doyle Crane and with intent to temporarily deprive the said Doyle Crane of the possession of said motor vehicle.” He was also charged with a prior conviction of a similar offense. He pleaded not guilty to the offense charged, but admitted the prior conviction. Following a trial, at which he was represented by the public defender, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Judgment was pronounced and defendant has appealed from the judgment.

Upon appellant’s request that an attorney be appointed to represent him upon the appeal, the court appointed Mr. Douglas C. Busath of the Sacramento Bar. Mr. Busath has informed the court that after a thorough review of the record it is his opinion that appellant had a fair trial and there are no meritorious grounds of appeal.

However, we have made a careful study of the entire record and agree that the appeal is without any merit whatever. The evidence is overwhelming that appellant took an automobile belonging to Doyle Crane in the city of Ukiah and, without the owner’s permission, drove it to Clear Lake in Lake County where he was apprehended while in possession of the automobile. The record shows that appellant was ably defended; that he received a fair trial and that the evidence fully supports the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

Van Dyke, P. J., and Warne, J. pro tem.,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

330 P.2d 828, 164 Cal. App. 2d 619, 1958 Cal. App. LEXIS 1653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-weston-calctapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack