People v. Wilson — 20 Cal. App. 40

Majority

p. 40

[Crim. No. 400.

First Appellate District.

October 2, 1912.]

THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. EDWARD WILSON, Appellant.

Headnote

Criminal Law—Bobbery—Appeal prom Judgment and Order Denying New Trial—Bevibw upon Appeal—Absence op Briep or Transcript—Affirmance.-—Where an appeal is taken both from a judgment of conviction of robbery and from an order denying a new trial, and no brief or argument is submitted for the appellant, and the case has been ordered to be submitted for decision, where it appears that no reporter’s transcript has been filed, and' that the time for such filing under section 1247. of the Penal Code, or any extension thereof which could be granted under section 1247d of the same code, has long since elapsed, the appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial cannot be considered and where no error appears upon the judgment-roll, the judgment and order must be affirmed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. William P. Lawlor, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Edward O ’Dea, and John F. Brady, for Appellant.

U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, for Respondent.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of robbery, and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for a term of twelve years. The appeal is from the judgment and an order denying a motion for a new trial.

The cause was on our last calendar for argument, and, when called, counsel for defendant failed to argue it, but obtained time within which to file a brief. No brief having been filed, and the time allowed therefor having expired, the court this day ordered the matter to be submitted for decision.

On examination of the record we find that no reporter’s transcript has been filed, and the time for such filing, under section 1247 of the Penal Code, or any extension thereof which could he granted under section 1247d of said code, has

p. 41

long since elapsed. The appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial cannot, therefore, be considered.

So far as the appeal from the judgment is concerned we have examined the judgment-roll, and find nothing therein which lends any support to the defendant in such appeal.

The judgment and order are accordingly affirmed.

Hall, J., and Lennon, P. J., concurred.