People v. Resum

California Court of Appeal

People v. Resum

120 Cal. App. 2d 618

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 15, 1953

DocketCrim. No. 4993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 120 Cal. App. 2d 618 (People v. Resum) 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. Resum, 120 Cal. App. 2d 618 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment of guilty of robbery of the first degree, after trial before a jury, defendant Taylor appeals.

Defendant does not contend that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgments of guilty. On the contrary defendant’s attorney on the motion for a new trial conceded “the overwhelming evidence that the people” had produced of defendant’s guilt. However, defendant argues on this appeal that certain of the evidence was conflicting and should have been disbelieved by the trier of fact. This, of course, cannot avail defendant in view of the well established rule in California that if there is any substantial evidence to sustain the findings of the trier of fact, an appellate court will not interfere with such findings. (People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [104 P.2d 778].)

Since no other points are stated or argued, this court will presume that the rulings of the trial judge were correct and that the proceedings were regular and free from error. (People v. Vivian, 50 Cal.App.2d 533, 537 [5] [123 P.2d 613] ; People v. Purcell, 22 Cal.App.2d 126, 128 [2] [70 P.2d 706] ; People v. Cebulla, 127 Cal. 314, 318. [5] [70 P. 181].)

Affirmed.

Moore, P. J., and Fox, J., concurred.

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

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment of guilty of robbery of the first degree, after trial before a jury, defendant Taylor appeals.

Defendant does not contend that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgments of guilty. On the contrary defendant’s attorney on the motion for a new trial conceded “the overwhelming evidence that the people” had produced of defendant’s guilt. However, defendant argues on this appeal that certain of the evidence was conflicting and should have been disbelieved by the trier of fact. This, of course, cannot avail defendant in view of the well established rule in California that if there is any substantial evidence to sustain the findings of the trier of fact, an appellate court will not interfere with such findings. (People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [104 P.2d 778].)

Since no other points are stated or argued, this court will presume that the rulings of the trial judge were correct and that the proceedings were regular and free from error. (People v. Vivian, 50 Cal.App.2d 533, 537 [5] [123 P.2d 613] ; People v. Purcell, 22 Cal.App.2d 126, 128 [2] [70 P.2d 706] ; People v. Cebulla, 127 Cal. 314, 318. [5] [70 P. 181].)

Affirmed.

Moore, P. J., and Fox, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 Cal. App. 2d 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-resum-calctapp-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack