Martin

In an information filed on August 15, 1960, appellant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon in violation of section 245 of the Penal Code. On September 7, 1960, appellant’s motion under section 995 of the Penal Code was denied, whereupon he entered a plea of not guilty. Appellant waived a jury trial.

At the trial the prosecution introduced substantial evidence that on June 5, 1960, in the City of Los Angeles appellant, acting without provocation, attacked one Richard M. Lewis, striking him on the head with a hammer described in the *323 testimony as a “ball peen hammer—flat on one end and round on the other. ’As a result of this assault, the victim sustained a fractured skull and was hospitalized for approximately 10 days. The trial court found appellant guilty and entered judgment, sentencing him to county jail for a term of one year. He has appealed from the judgment and sentence.

Appellant expressly concedes “the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the court’s finding of guilt.” He advances as his sole ground of appeal the contention that his constitutional rights were violated in that “the accusation fails to set forth the essential acts constituting the offense…