People v. Stanza

California Court of Appeal

People v. Stanza

25 P.2d 30, 134 Cal. App. 122, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 94

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 7, 1933

DocketDocket No. 1720.

StatusPublished

This text of 25 P.2d 30 (People v. Stanza) 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. Stanza, 25 P.2d 30, 134 Cal. App. 122, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

The defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree, and on October 24, 1932, in conformity with the recommendation of the jury, was sen- *123 fenced to imprisonment for life in the penitentiary. Execution of sentence was stayed for one day. Written notice of appeal was given, and counsel representing the defendant up to that time thereupon withdrew from the case. Approximately three months later and on January 10, 1933, counsel now appearing for defendant presented a motion on behalf of the defendant, under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asking that defendant be relieved of his default in failing to comply with the legal requirement of demanding a transcript on appeal; and on January 25, 1933, said motion was granted. Thereafter the clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts consisting of more than 300 pages were prepared and certified, and later filed in this court. At the time the appeal was called for hearing in this court oral argument on behalf of defendant was waived and permission was given to file a brief. However, no brief of any kind has been presented or filed. The evidence contained in the reporter’s transcript is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury; and it follows, therefore, in the absence of any attempt whatever on the part of defendant’s counsel to point out any error in the record, that the judgment of conviction and the order denying the motion for new trial should be and they are hereby affirmed.

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

THE COURT.

The defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree, and on October 24, 1932, in conformity with the recommendation of the jury, was sen- *123 fenced to imprisonment for life in the penitentiary. Execution of sentence was stayed for one day. Written notice of appeal was given, and counsel representing the defendant up to that time thereupon withdrew from the case. Approximately three months later and on January 10, 1933, counsel now appearing for defendant presented a motion on behalf of the defendant, under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asking that defendant be relieved of his default in failing to comply with the legal requirement of demanding a transcript on appeal; and on January 25, 1933, said motion was granted. Thereafter the clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts consisting of more than 300 pages were prepared and certified, and later filed in this court. At the time the appeal was called for hearing in this court oral argument on behalf of defendant was waived and permission was given to file a brief. However, no brief of any kind has been presented or filed. The evidence contained in the reporter’s transcript is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury; and it follows, therefore, in the absence of any attempt whatever on the part of defendant’s counsel to point out any error in the record, that the judgment of conviction and the order denying the motion for new trial should be and they are hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 P.2d 30, 134 Cal. App. 122, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stanza-calctapp-1933.