Hanna

The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of two robberies in the first degree and an order denying his motion for a new trial.

No point is made as to the sufficiency of the testimony. The points raised relate to procedure. Appellant and William Titlow in one information were jointly charged with having committed robbery on the night of December 24, 1928, and under another information they were jointly charged with having committed another robbery on the night of December 29, 1928. Defendant Titlow pleaded guilty to one of the two charges against him. At a hearing on February 20, 1929, the public defender appearing for and representing appellant, Hanna, the court granted the motion of the People without objection of the appellant that the two defendants be tried separately and that the two charges against appellant Planna he tried together. These orders appear in the clerk's transcript as well as in the reporter’s transcript. After a number of continuances the case finally came on for trial. Appellant was then represented by Attorney Ewell. The order consolidating the trial of the two charges against appellant was properly made under the authority of Penal Code section…