People v. Tate

California Court of Appeal

People v. Tate

17 Cal. App. 368

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 4, 1911

DocketCrim. No. 162

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Cal. App. 368 (People v. Tate) 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. Tate, 17 Cal. App. 368 (Cal. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

HART, J.

This cause was on the October, 1911, calendar of this court and submitted on the record.

There is no evidence in the record of an appeal having been taken from the judgment or an order denying the defendant a new trial, if such an order was made. Obviously, therefore, this court has not acquired jurisdiction to review the record.

Moreover, there are no briefs filed in the cause, and, if an 'appeal had been taken, the same would have to be dismissed for a failure of appellant to file a brief, assuming that he would have omitted to do so had he taken an appeal either from the judgment or the order denying him a new trial, if a motion of that character was made and denied. (People v. Perry, 16 Cal. App. 771, [117 Pac. 1036].)

For the foregoing reasons, the record will have to be stricken from the files of the court, and it is so ordered. '

Chipman, P. J., and Burnett, J., concurred.

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

HART, J.

This cause was on the October, 1911, calendar of this court and submitted on the record.

There is no evidence in the record of an appeal having been taken from the judgment or an order denying the defendant a new trial, if such an order was made. Obviously, therefore, this court has not acquired jurisdiction to review the record.

Moreover, there are no briefs filed in the cause, and, if an 'appeal had been taken, the same would have to be dismissed for a failure of appellant to file a brief, assuming that he would have omitted to do so had he taken an appeal either from the judgment or the order denying him a new trial, if a motion of that character was made and denied. (People v. Perry, 16 Cal. App. 771, [117 Pac. 1036].)

For the foregoing reasons, the record will have to be stricken from the files of the court, and it is so ordered. '

Chipman, P. J., and Burnett, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Cal. App. 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tate-calctapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack