People v. Taylor
The People v. Earl Taylor
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Joaquin County
- Trial judge
- D. M. Young
- Outcome
- other — The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- The Court. — (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
Defendant was convicted of receiving stolen property. His appeal was regularly taken but it has not been prosecuted. No argument has been made in his behalf in this court, and, therefore, our attention has not been called to any ground for interfering with the judgment of the lower court. The presumptions are, of course, in favor of the regularity of the proceedings in the court below. Moreover, an examination of the record discloses sufficient evidence to justify the verdict without prejudicial error being shown therein. (People v.Wagner, ante, p. 41, [171 P. 699].)
The judgment and order are therefore affirmed. *Page 763
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wagner Crim. No. 412. · 1918-01-25