People v. Wallington
The People v. F. Amy Wallington
- Area
- criminal
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
THE COURT.
[1] It appears from the face of the application for a stay of execution of the judgment under section 1243 of the Penal Code that the appeal from the judgment is abortive and that the order made after judgment necessarily must be affirmed. The appeal from the judgment was not taken in time. (Pen. Code, sec. 1239; Starr v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.App. 670 [139 P. 241].) [2] The sufficiency of the indictment could not be questioned on the motion made in the lower court to set aside *Page 367 the judgment after it had become final. (People v. Mooney,178 Cal. 525 [174 P. 325]; People v. Reid, 195 Cal. 249 [36 A.L.R. 1345, 232 P. 457].)
The application for stay of execution is denied.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Reid Docket No. Crim. 2728. · 1924-12-31
- People v. Mooney Crim. No. 2175. In Bank. · 1918-07-15
- Starr v. Superior Court Civ. No. 1466. · 1914-01-09
Cited by
- People v. Coston Crim. 2511 · 1948-03-30
- People v. Egan Crim. 2392 · 1946-04-10
- People v. Schwarz Docket No. 1372. · 1926-08-04