People v. Houston
Before: Marks
MARKS, J.
Defendant was charged with violation of the provisions of section 480 of the Vehicle Code, which denounces the crime popularly known as “hit and run”. He was convicted and sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary. He made motions for arrest of judgment and for new trial, which were denied. He has appealed from these orders and from the judgment. He has also attempted to appeal from a multitude of rulings and orders of the trial judge, none of which is appealable. (See. 1237, Pen. Code.) The order denying a motion for arrest of judgment is not appeal-able.
(People
v.
Williams,
184 Cal. 590 [194 Pac. 1019].)
Defendant urges a great number of alleged errors, most of which are simply stated as errors, without any argument to support them and without citation of authority. A large portion of his brief is devoted to arguing inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses and conflicts in the evidence. Such arguments are proper before a jury but under circumstances here presented have no appropriate place in a brief in an appellate court which cannot judge the credibility of the witness, determine the weight of the evidence, nor settle conflicts in it except in those extreme eases where evidence may be held to be so inherently improbable as to be unworthy of belief. We will only consider those specifications of error which may possibly deserve attention.
[169]
Defendant urges that the amended information on which he was tried does not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense. In charging the offense the pleading follows the statute and sets forth all the necessary elements-of the crime in ordinary, concise, and understandable language as required by our law. (Secs. 950, 951, 952, Pen. Code.)
Defendant further urges that “hit and run” is a misdemeanor and not a felony. In support of this argument he cites various sections of the Vehicle Code which provide that violations of that code shall be misdemeanors where not otherwise provided. Section 480 of the Vehicle Code contains its own penalty, so the other sections are not applicable.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)