Navarro

The defendant was convicted of burglary of the second degree and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison at San Quentin. From the judgment of commitment and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial he has appealed.

The defendant and two other individuals were separately charged with participating in the same burglary of certain wearing apparel at a specified time and place. Upon motion of the district attorney these three cases were consolidated for the purpose of trial. The eases were regularly set for trial for August 9, 1933. A jury was summoned for that date. On the day set for the trial, the district attorney moved to sever the causes for trial. This motion was formally objected to by counsel for the appellant, who then said, “We have gone ahead and arranged a joint defense, and this (severance) just brings confusion to the defendants in their case.” The appellant’s attorney, Mr. Zarick, further said: “We haven’t a strenuous objection to going to trial at this particular time, but we do prefer to go to trial after Mr. Frye has his trial.” The case against Frye was in no way related to the present action. The objection to the trial at that time appears…