Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jay LEWIS, Defendant and Appellant.
Jay Lewis was accused by information of grand theft consisting of the theft of aluminum ingots of the value of $270. In a trial to the court in which defendant was represented by counsel and did not take the stand in his defense, he was convicted; probation was denied, and he was sentenced to state prison. He gave notice of appeal in propria persona from the judgment and sentence, which we construe only as an appeal from a judgment.
Upon defendant's application for appointment of counsel, we referred the matter to the Los Angeles Bar Association Committee on Criminal Appeals. A comprehensive report was made to the court by a member of the committee, stating there was no meritorious ground of appeal. From our own examination of the record it appeared that appointment of counsel would be of no benefit to the defendant or to the court. Appointment of counsel was denied and defendant was duly notified and given an opportunity to file a brief. No brief has been filed.
There was evidence of the following facts. On November 21, 1958, 41 aluminum ingots were stolen from the yard of Goldberg Metal Refining Company. They had a value of $270. Each ingot contained an identifying mark. On November 24th, the defendant and one Joe Thomas drove defendant's truck onto the premises of Arrow Metals. It contained most of the stolen ingots, each of which had been broken into three pieces. Arrow Metals bought approximately 1100 pounds of ingots and made out a purchase ticket. Defendant signed the ticket with his own name and Thomas also signed it. A check for the purchase price was given to Lewis.
Defendant was ably represented at the trial by a deputy public defender. There was conclusive evidence of his guilt and the case was tried without error.
The judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Cr. 6717.
Decided: January 20, 1960
Court: District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)