People v. Raleigh

California Court of Appeal

People v. Raleigh

25 P.2d 40, 134 Cal. App. 125, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 92

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 7, 1933

DocketDocket No. 1735.

StatusPublished

This text of 25 P.2d 40 (People v. Raleigh) 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. Raleigh, 25 P.2d 40, 134 Cal. App. 125, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 92 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

The defendant was convicted of an attempt to commit robbery of the first degree and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison. He appealed, and the judgment of conviction and order denying his motion for new trial were affirmed. (People v. Raleigh, 128 Cal. App. 105 [16 Pac. (2d) 752].) Thereafter he applied for probation, and after a full hearing his motion therefor was denied. Two days later defendant’s present counsel who had been substituted shortly after the order was made denying the application for probation, appeared in defendant’s behalf and moved said court “to suspend the execution of the judgment”. The motion was denied, and thereupon he gave notice of appeal and demanded the preparation of a transcript, which was accordingly prepared, certified and filed in conformity with all legal requirements. The *126 appeal was called for hearing in this court, but no oral argument was presented on behalf of the defendant. Time was given to file a brief, but none has been presented or filed. Therefore, since no grounds have been urged in support of the appeal, the order appealed from is affirmed.

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

THE COURT.

The defendant was convicted of an attempt to commit robbery of the first degree and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison. He appealed, and the judgment of conviction and order denying his motion for new trial were affirmed. (People v. Raleigh, 128 Cal. App. 105 [16 Pac. (2d) 752].) Thereafter he applied for probation, and after a full hearing his motion therefor was denied. Two days later defendant’s present counsel who had been substituted shortly after the order was made denying the application for probation, appeared in defendant’s behalf and moved said court “to suspend the execution of the judgment”. The motion was denied, and thereupon he gave notice of appeal and demanded the preparation of a transcript, which was accordingly prepared, certified and filed in conformity with all legal requirements. The *126 appeal was called for hearing in this court, but no oral argument was presented on behalf of the defendant. Time was given to file a brief, but none has been presented or filed. Therefore, since no grounds have been urged in support of the appeal, the order appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 P.2d 40, 134 Cal. App. 125, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-raleigh-calctapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack