Can a defendant appeal his conviction for assault with intent to murder?

There was ample substantial evidence to support the conviction. The trial judge was assiduous in protecting the rights of the accused, permitting counsel for defendant to cross-examine the People's witnesses without limitation. The case was fairly tried and the jury was properly instructed. Essentially it was a question of the reliability of identification witnesses and the truthfulness of defense alibi witnesses who frequently contradicted each other and occasionally contradicted themselves. The jury chose to believe the former and to disbelieve the latter. There were many conflicts in the evidence but as stated in People v. Lara, 67 Cal.2d 365, 392, 62 Cal.Rptr. 586, 605, 432 P.2d 202, 221, '* * * to the extent that the relevant evidence is in conflict, the resolution of the triers of fact below, which was made under correct rules of law, will not be disturbed on appeal. (Citation.)'

Defendant contends that he was subjected to double punishment as proscribed by section 654 of the Penal Code by reason of the fact that the judgment contained a recitation that he was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of the commission of the offense. The recent case of People v. Floyd, Cal., 80 Cal.Rptr. 22, 457 P.2d 862, disposes of this issue and requires that the judgment of conviction be modified to provide that at the time of the commission of the offense sections 3024 and 12022 of the Penal Code were inapplicable but defendant was armed within the meaning of section 1203 of the Penal Code. The judgment must also specify the nature of the weapon.