22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T537,This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of selling marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code, section 11531. In an indictment filed in Los Angeles on August 8, 1962, defendant was charged with selling marijuana on July 25, 1962. Defendant pleaded not guilty. In a trial without a jury defendant was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to the state prison. A résumé of some of the facts and the proceedings is as follows: The sole issue is whether there was substantial evidence to support the judgment of conviction. We approach, and determine the matter as an appellate court. (People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [ 104 P.2d 778 ].) There is no question as to appellant’s identity because of the stipulation by counsel. Officer Hill’s testimony not only identified de *846 fendant but indicated that he was the one who pointed out the package of marijuana in the bush, told the officer the quantity of marijuana which it contained and set the price for its sale, received the money and returned the change to the officer. This evidence was sufficient to determine that defendant was guilty of the offense charged. The judgment is affirmed. Wood, P. J., and Lillie, J., concurred. Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied May 1,1968. Mosk, J., did not participate therein.24:T55c,

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of selling marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code, section 11531.

In an indictment filed in Los Angeles on August 8, 1962, defendant was charged with selling marijuana on July 25, 1962. Defendant pleaded not guilty. In a trial without a jury defendant was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to the state prison.

A résumé of some of the facts and the proceedings is as follows:

The sole issue is whether there was substantial evidence to support the judgment of conviction. We approach, and determine the matter as an appellate court. (People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [ 104 P.2d 778 ].) There is no question as to appellant’s identity because of the stipulation by counsel. Officer Hill’s testimony not only identified de *846 fendant but indicated that he was the one who pointed out the package of marijuana in the bush, told the officer the quantity of marijuana which it contained and set the price for its sale, received the money and returned the change to the officer. This evidence was sufficient to determine that defendant was guilty of the offense charged.

The judgment is affirmed.

Wood, P. J., and Lillie, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied May 1,1968. Mosk, J., did not participate therein.