People v. Pimentel

California Court of Appeal

People v. Pimentel

37 Cal. App. 682

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 27, 1918

DocketCrim. No. 438

StatusPublished

This text of 37 Cal. App. 682 (People v. Pimentel) 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. Pimentel, 37 Cal. App. 682 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

The defendant was convicted of robbery, and from the judgment and the order denying Ms motion for a hew trial he brings this appeal.

No appearance in Ms behalf has been made in this court and we have been furnished with no statement of any reason for disturbing the verdict found against the defendant.

Of course, the presumption is that no prejudicial error was committed and that the verdict is amply supported. We may add that we have sufficiently examined the record to be convinced that the defendant was justly convicted.

The judgment and order are affirmed.

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

THE COURT.

The defendant was convicted of robbery, and from the judgment and the order denying Ms motion for a hew trial he brings this appeal.

No appearance in Ms behalf has been made in this court and we have been furnished with no statement of any reason for disturbing the verdict found against the defendant.

Of course, the presumption is that no prejudicial error was committed and that the verdict is amply supported. We may add that we have sufficiently examined the record to be convinced that the defendant was justly convicted.

The judgment and order are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Cal. App. 682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pimentel-calctapp-1918.