Majority
p. 278[Crim. No. 677. Third Appellate District. March 6, 1923.] THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. FRANK PIMINTEL, Appellant.
Headnote
[1] Criminal Law—Escape from Guards—'Conviction—Appeal.— The defendant having been convicted of the crime of escaping from the surveillance of his guards, and he having given notice of appeal, but no brief having been filed in his behalf nor any appearance made for him at the time set for oral argument, and no error appearing in the record, the judgment was affirmed.APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County. Malcolm C. Glenn, Judge.
p. 279
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
No appearance for Appellant.
U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and J. Charles Jones, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.
While a prisoner in the state prison the defendant was taken outside thereof to work. He was convicted of the crime of escaping from the surveillance of his guards while so outside. [1] The defendant gave notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction, but no brief has been filed in his behalf nor was any appearance made for him at the time set for oral argument. No error appears in the record. The information is substantially the same as those in the cases of People v. French, ante, p. 275 [ 214 Pac. 1003 ], and People v. Lewis, post, 280 [ 214 Pac. 1005 ].
The judgment is affirmed.
Burnett, J., and Hart, J., concurred.