People v. Brush
The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. SEYMOUR IVEAN BRUSH, Appellant
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Van Dyke (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Van Dyke
VAN DYKE, P. J.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury’s verdict which found appellant guilty of arson and two counts of burglary.
The public defender who represented appellant at his trial filed a notice of appeal on his behalf, but later advised this court that after a review of the entire transcript he found no sufficient grounds to prosecute the appeal. Nevertheless, upon appellant’s request for counsel, we appointed Richard Backus, Esquire, to represent him. Mr. Backus has advised the court that he found no error upon which a meritorious appeal could be based. After an independent review of the record, we have reached the same conclusion.
The testimony of appellant’s two accomplices and the extrajudicial statements of appellant so overwhelmingly estab *772 lish his guilt that the jury would have been remiss in its duty if it had failed to convict him. There were no errors in law.
The purported appeal from an order denying a new trial is dismissed as no motion for a new trial was made. The judgment is affirmed.
Peek, J., and Warne, J. pro tem., * * concurred.
* Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council.
Cited by
- People v. Bowman Crim. 4769 · 1966-02-24