Carter

The appeal in this case follows a conviction and sentence for robbery in the first degree. (Pen. Code, §§ 211 and 211a.)

The main thrust of the appeal is that reversal is required, based upon evidence not adduced at trial; that by virtue of the failure to interview a witness and thereafter to exercise a reasonable tactical decision as to whether to call said person to testify, the trial was relegated to a farce and a sham. (People v. Ibarra, 60 Cal.2d 460, 464 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 863 , 386 P.2d 487 ].)

The issue was not raised before the trial court by way of motion for new trial, hence determination is properly by way of writ of habeas corpus and not by direct appeal. 1 (People v. Pena, 25 Cal.App.3d 414, 423 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 804 ].)

There is another contention, however, which has merit and necessitates reversal, i.e., that “The trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Alex Freedland to a dissimilar robbery from which he could not identify appellant.” The testimony relative to the uncharged crime was admitted under the theory of “common plan, scheme and design, *263 and further [to] identify” defendant. We conclude that the evidence of the uncharged offense was…