People v. Warner

California Court of Appeal

People v. Warner

50 Cal. App. 70

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 19, 1920

DocketCrim. No. 533

StatusPublished

This text of 50 Cal. App. 70 (People v. Warner) 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. Warner, 50 Cal. App. 70 (Cal. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

BURNETT, J.

Defendant was charged with the crime of assault with a deadly weapon. He was convicted of assault and sentenced to pay a fine of $125. The appeal is from the judgment. The evidence has not been brought up and only the judgment-roll is available to ascertain whether any error was committed. [1] The record ,has been examined, and outside of a clerical mistake in the information, nothing of an irregular nature has been discovered. Said mistake consists of the omission of the defendant’s name in one portion of said information, but it is manifest that no prejudice resulted therefrom. Indeed, appellant has not argued the ease in this court either orally or by brief, and [71]*71this failure may he deemed an admission that no cause exists for a reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.

Prewett, P. J., pro tern., and Hart, J., concurred.

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

BURNETT, J.

Defendant was charged with the crime of assault with a deadly weapon. He was convicted of assault and sentenced to pay a fine of $125. The appeal is from the judgment. The evidence has not been brought up and only the judgment-roll is available to ascertain whether any error was committed. [1] The record ,has been examined, and outside of a clerical mistake in the information, nothing of an irregular nature has been discovered. Said mistake consists of the omission of the defendant’s name in one portion of said information, but it is manifest that no prejudice resulted therefrom. Indeed, appellant has not argued the ease in this court either orally or by brief, and [71]*71this failure may he deemed an admission that no cause exists for a reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.

Prewett, P. J., pro tern., and Hart, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 Cal. App. 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-warner-calctapp-1920.