People v. Pacheco

California Court of Appeal Aug 24, 1933 No. Docket No. 1743.Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for first-degree robbery and the order denying a new trial due to the appellant's failure to file a brief or appear for oral argument.

Issues

Whether the judgment and order denying a new trial should be affirmed when the appellant fails to file a brief or appear for oral argument.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Pursuant to the provisions of section 1253 of the Penal Code the judgment and the order denying a new trial are affirmed.”

THE COURT.

The defendant and appellant was convicted in the Superior Court in the County of Alameda of a felony, to wit, robbery. A jury trial was waived and the trial court found the crime as of the first degree.

[1] Judgment was duly entered April 12, 1933, and the transcript on appeal was filed in this court on May 4, 1933. The cause was regularly placed on the calendar for oral argument on June 12, 1933. No appearance was made for appellant at the time the cause was called for hearing other than a request for additional time to file a brief. No brief has been filed in his behalf and the time granted for that purpose has long since expired.

Pursuant to the provisions of section 1253 of the Penal Code the judgment and the order denying a new trial are affirmed. *Page 27

People v. Pacheco

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief