People v. Lennert

California Court of Appeal

People v. Lennert

216 P. 1117, 62 Cal. App. 296, 1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 466

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 24, 1923

DocketCrim. No. 685.

StatusPublished

This text of 216 P. 1117 (People v. Lennert) 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. Lennert, 216 P. 1117, 62 Cal. App. 296, 1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 466 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Appellant was convicted of three separate acts of burglary charged in one information in different counts and he has appealed from the judgment and an order denying his motion for a new trial.

[1] There has been no appearance for him in this court nor has any argument been submitted in his behalf. We have, however, carefully examined the transcript and have found no error therein. The motion for a new trial was made solely upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict, but it was promptly denied by *Page 297 the trial court. It would serve no useful purpose to set out the evidence, but we are satisfied that it was amply sufficient to justify the conviction.

The judgment and order are affirmed.

Hart, J., and Finch, P. J., concurred.

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

Appellant was convicted of three separate acts of burglary charged in one information in different counts and he has appealed from the judgment and an order denying his motion for a new trial.

[1] There has been no appearance for him in this court nor has any argument been submitted in his behalf. We have, however, carefully examined the transcript and have found no error therein. The motion for a new trial was made solely upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict, but it was promptly denied by *Page 297 the trial court. It would serve no useful purpose to set out the evidence, but we are satisfied that it was amply sufficient to justify the conviction.

The judgment and order are affirmed.

Hart, J., and Finch, P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 P. 1117, 62 Cal. App. 296, 1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lennert-calctapp-1923.