People v. Simpson

California Court of Appeal

People v. Simpson

107 P.2d 262, 41 Cal. App. 2d 526, 1940 Cal. App. LEXIS 275

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 18, 1940

DocketCrim. 1741

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 107 P.2d 262 (People v. Simpson) 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. Simpson, 107 P.2d 262, 41 Cal. App. 2d 526, 1940 Cal. App. LEXIS 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is a motion to dismiss an attempted appeal. Defendant was convicted of robbery. Upon the date set for pronouncing sentence the defendant was in the hospital recovering from an attempted suicide, and the matter of sentencing defendant was continued one week. On that day the defendant appeared in court and moved for a new trial, and consented that the matter be continued to a time some six days later. On that day the motion for a new trial was heard and denied, and the defendant sentenced to the state prison. No appeal was taken from the judgment, nor motion made in arrest thereof. Some seven or eight months *527 thereafter, however, defendant moved to vacate, annul and set aside the judgment. This motion was promptly heard and denied. ,

Defendant now attempts to appeal from that order denying his motion to vacate and set aside the judgment. This precise question was before this court in People v. Carkeek, 35 Cal. App. (2d) 499 [96 Pac. (2d) 132], wherein a motion such as this to dismiss an attempted appeal was granted.

The matter there having been fully considered it is not necessary here to discuss this question further. (See, also, People v. Birdsell, 21 Cal. App. (2d) 682 [70 Pac. (2d) 231], and People v. Smith, 217 Cal. 267 [18 Pac. (2d) 329].)

A second objection urged by defendant is that the court failed to pronounce judgment within the time prescribed by law. (Secs. 1191 and 1202 of the Penal Code.) This point also is decided against the contention of defendant in People v. Pollock, 31 Cal. App. (2d) 747 [89 Pac. (2d) 328].

For the foregoing reasons the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted, and the appeal dismissed. It is so ordered.

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

THE COURT.

This is a motion to dismiss an attempted appeal. Defendant was convicted of robbery. Upon the date set for pronouncing sentence the defendant was in the hospital recovering from an attempted suicide, and the matter of sentencing defendant was continued one week. On that day the defendant appeared in court and moved for a new trial, and consented that the matter be continued to a time some six days later. On that day the motion for a new trial was heard and denied, and the defendant sentenced to the state prison. No appeal was taken from the judgment, nor motion made in arrest thereof. Some seven or eight months *527 thereafter, however, defendant moved to vacate, annul and set aside the judgment. This motion was promptly heard and denied. ,

Defendant now attempts to appeal from that order denying his motion to vacate and set aside the judgment. This precise question was before this court in People v. Carkeek, 35 Cal. App. (2d) 499 [96 Pac. (2d) 132], wherein a motion such as this to dismiss an attempted appeal was granted.

The matter there having been fully considered it is not necessary here to discuss this question further. (See, also, People v. Birdsell, 21 Cal. App. (2d) 682 [70 Pac. (2d) 231], and People v. Smith, 217 Cal. 267 [18 Pac. (2d) 329].)

A second objection urged by defendant is that the court failed to pronounce judgment within the time prescribed by law. (Secs. 1191 and 1202 of the Penal Code.) This point also is decided against the contention of defendant in People v. Pollock, 31 Cal. App. (2d) 747 [89 Pac. (2d) 328].

For the foregoing reasons the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted, and the appeal dismissed. It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 P.2d 262, 41 Cal. App. 2d 526, 1940 Cal. App. LEXIS 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-simpson-calctapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack