gno.law

People v. Lusk

California Court of Appeal · Crim. No. 583. · 1922-01-06 · Published · 204 P. 409 · 56 Cal. App. 67 · 1922 Cal. App. LEXIS 421

The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CYRUS LUSK Et Al., Appellants

Proceeding
appeal from judgments
Trial court
Superior Court of Yolo County
Trial judge
W. A. Anderson
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
criminal
Panel
Finch (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 — Finch

FINCH, P. J.

The defendants appeal from judgments of conviction of the crime of robbery and from orders denying their motions for new trials.

[1]

The transcript was filed in this court August 4, 1921. No briefs have been filed in behalf of appellants. The cause was regularly placed on the calendar of January 5, 1922, for oral argument. No appearance was made for either appellant. The appeal is submitted on the record on motion of the respondent without argument. Section 1253 of the Penal Code provides: “The judgment may be affirmed if the appellant fails to appear, but can be reversed only after argument, though the respondent fail to appear.” Under the law “but one disposition can be made of the case in its present condition; it can be affirmed.”

(People v. Gehrig, 7 Cal. Unrep. 149 [72 Pac. 717].) A careful examination of the record, however, discloses no prejudicial error in the conduct of the trial, the rulings of the court, or the instructions to the jury. The evidence *68 of the defendants’ guilt is positive and ample to sustain the conviction.

The judgments and orders appealed from are affirmed.

Burnett, J., and Hart, J., concurred. .

Cites, in this corpus