People v. Pimintel

California Court of Appeal

People v. Pimintel

61 Cal. App. 278

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 6, 1923

DocketCrim. No. 677

StatusPublished

This text of 61 Cal. App. 278 (People v. Pimintel) 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. Pimintel, 61 Cal. App. 278 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

FINCH, P. J.

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. 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.

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

FINCH, P. J.

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. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 Cal. App. 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pimintel-calctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack