People v. Wilson

California Court of Appeal

People v. Wilson

46 P.2d 229, 7 Cal. App. 2d 543, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 770

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 12, 1935

DocketCrim. No. 184

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 46 P.2d 229 (People v. Wilson) 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. Wilson, 46 P.2d 229, 7 Cal. App. 2d 543, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 770 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

BARNARD, P. J.

The defendant, after conviction on a charge of driving a vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, has attempted to appeal and the respondent has moved to dismiss "the appeal.

When the verdict was entered counsel for appellant stated that he was giving oral notice of appeal. This notice was premature and without effect. (People v. Ward, 138 Cal. 684 [72 Pac. 343]; People v. Hill, 1 Cal. App. 414 [82 Pac. 398].) Thereafter judgment was entered, no notice of appeal being then given. Five days later, a written notice of appeal from the judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new trial was filed. This notice was too late and was ineffectual for any purpose. (Sec. 1239, Pen. [544]*544Code; People v. Lewis, 219 Cal. 410 [27 Pac. (2d) 73]; People v. Sullivan, 123 Cal. App. 436 [11 Pac. (2d) 420]; People v. Payne, 106 Cal. App. 609 [289 Pac. 909].)

The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Marks, J., and Harden, J., pro tem., concurred.

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

BARNARD, P. J.

The defendant, after conviction on a charge of driving a vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, has attempted to appeal and the respondent has moved to dismiss "the appeal.

When the verdict was entered counsel for appellant stated that he was giving oral notice of appeal. This notice was premature and without effect. (People v. Ward, 138 Cal. 684 [72 Pac. 343]; People v. Hill, 1 Cal. App. 414 [82 Pac. 398].) Thereafter judgment was entered, no notice of appeal being then given. Five days later, a written notice of appeal from the judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new trial was filed. This notice was too late and was ineffectual for any purpose. (Sec. 1239, Pen. [544]*544Code; People v. Lewis, 219 Cal. 410 [27 Pac. (2d) 73]; People v. Sullivan, 123 Cal. App. 436 [11 Pac. (2d) 420]; People v. Payne, 106 Cal. App. 609 [289 Pac. 909].)

The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Marks, J., and Harden, J., pro tem., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 P.2d 229, 7 Cal. App. 2d 543, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wilson-calctapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack