Home/California Court of Appeal/People v. Wallington

People v. Wallington

246 P. 815, 77 Cal. App. 366, 1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 289
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedApril 7, 1926
DocketDocket No. 1372.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 246 P. 815 (People v. Wallington) 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. Wallington, 246 P. 815, 77 Cal. App. 366, 1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 289 (Cal. Ct. App. 1926).

Opinion

THE COURT.

[1] It appears from the face of the application for a stay of execution of the judgment under section 1243 of the Penal Code that the appeal from the judgment is abortive and that the order made after judgment necessarily must be affirmed. The appeal from the judgment was not taken in time. (Pen. Code, sec. 1239; Starr v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.App. 670 [139 P. 241].) [2] The sufficiency of the indictment could not be questioned on the motion made in the lower court to set aside *Page 367 the judgment after it had become final. (People v. Mooney,178 Cal. 525 [174 P. 325]; People v. Reid, 195 Cal. 249 [36 A.L.R. 1345, 232 P. 457].)

The application for stay of execution is denied.

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

Related

People v. Coston
191 P.2d 521 (California Court of Appeal, 1948)
People v. Egan
167 P.2d 766 (California Court of Appeal, 1946)
People v. Schwarz
248 P. 1043 (California Court of Appeal, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
246 P. 815, 77 Cal. App. 366, 1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wallington-calctapp-1926.