People v. Brush

California Court of Appeal

People v. Brush

194 Cal. App. 2d 771, 15 Cal. Rptr. 193, 1961 Cal. App. LEXIS 1877

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedAugust 16, 1961

DocketCrim. 3112

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 194 Cal. App. 2d 771 (People v. Brush) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Brush, 194 Cal. App. 2d 771, 15 Cal. Rptr. 193, 1961 Cal. App. LEXIS 1877 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

VAN DYKE, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury’s verdict which found appellant guilty of arson and two counts of burglary.

The public defender who represented appellant at his trial filed a notice of appeal on his behalf, but later advised this court that after a review of the entire transcript he found no sufficient grounds to prosecute the appeal. Nevertheless, upon appellant’s request for counsel, we appointed Richard Backus, Esquire, to represent him. Mr. Backus has advised the court that he found no error upon which a meritorious appeal could be based. After an independent review of the record, we have reached the same conclusion.

The testimony of appellant’s two accomplices and the extrajudicial statements of appellant so overwhelmingly estab *772 lish his guilt that the jury would have been remiss in its duty if it had failed to convict him. There were no errors in law.

The purported appeal from an order denying a new trial is dismissed as no motion for a new trial was made. The judgment is affirmed.

Peek, J., and Warne, J. pro tem., * * concurred.

*

Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

VAN DYKE, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury’s verdict which found appellant guilty of arson and two counts of burglary.

The public defender who represented appellant at his trial filed a notice of appeal on his behalf, but later advised this court that after a review of the entire transcript he found no sufficient grounds to prosecute the appeal. Nevertheless, upon appellant’s request for counsel, we appointed Richard Backus, Esquire, to represent him. Mr. Backus has advised the court that he found no error upon which a meritorious appeal could be based. After an independent review of the record, we have reached the same conclusion.

The testimony of appellant’s two accomplices and the extrajudicial statements of appellant so overwhelmingly estab *772 lish his guilt that the jury would have been remiss in its duty if it had failed to convict him. There were no errors in law.

The purported appeal from an order denying a new trial is dismissed as no motion for a new trial was made. The judgment is affirmed.

Peek, J., and Warne, J. pro tem., * * concurred.

*

Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 Cal. App. 2d 771, 15 Cal. Rptr. 193, 1961 Cal. App. LEXIS 1877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brush-calctapp-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack