75 Cal. App. 2d 478 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1946
By information defendant was charged with rape together with a prior conviction of robbery. He pleaded not guilty to the rape and stood mute on the charge of prior conviction. He and his counsel waived a jury trial. The court found him guilty of the rape, and likewise found that he had suffered the charged prior conviction. Prom the judgment of conviction and from the order denying his motion for a new trial the defendant appeals in propria persona, the public defender having refused to prosecute the appeal.
Defendant’s principal contention is that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment on the rape charge. He also urges, without citation of authority, that the prior conviction statutes are unconstitutional for the reason that evidence of a prior conviction necessarily prejudices the finder of fact against the accused on the main charge. There is no merit in either contention.
So far as the constitutionality of prior conviction statutes is concerned, the point is no longer an open question. (People v. Rose, 26 Cal.App.2d 513 [79 P.2d 737]; see, also, cases collected 8 Cal.Jur. § 614, p. 641; 4 Cal.Jur. 10-Yr. Supp. § 614, p. 1032.) No contention is made that in form the prior was not properly charged, proved or found.
The evidence on the rape charge amply demonstrates the guilt of the defendant. The complaining witness, who was but 19 years of age, on May 25, 1945, resided in an apairt
The complaining witness further testified that she had never been in defendant’s room, and that before May 25th he had never been in her room; that upon completion of the act defendant told her that he was going to return to her room again and that if she said anything to anybody about what had happened he would kill her; that the connecting door between the two rooms had been opened; that she did not scream during the act because she was in fear of her life; that after the act she was terrified and hysterical and remained in bed until about 8 a.m.. when she informed another tenant in the apartment of what had occurred and the police were called. The defendant was arrested in his room a short time later. The arresting officer found a key in the possession of defendant that fitted the lock in the connecting door. The nails on the defendant’s side of the door had been bent so that the door could open. When arrested the defendant, according to the arresting officers, was suffering from a very bad “hangover.”
Prom this brief summary it is obvious that the evidence is sufficient to support the finding of guilt, and that this court has no power to disturb the finding. (People v. Cline, 117 Cal.App. 181 [3 P.2d 575]; People v. Lay, 66 Cal.App.2d 889 [153 P.2d 379]; see, also, People v. Schneider, 36 Cal.App.2d 292 [98 P.2d 215]; People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678 [104 P.2d 778]; People v. Perkins, 8 Cal.2d 502 [66 P.2d 631]; People v. Tedesco, 1 Cal.2d 211 [34 P.2d 467].) We have carefully examined the transcript. There were no errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence. The record demonstrates that defendant was given a fair trial, and that the trial judge carefully protected all of the constitutional and statutory rights of defendant.
The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.
Knight, J., and Ward, J., concurred.