From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lenon

Supreme Court of California
Oct 30, 1888
77 Cal. 308 (Cal. 1888)

Opinion

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order refusing a new trial.

         Motion to dismiss appeal.

         COUNSEL:

         Hugh J. & William Crawford, for Appellant.

          Attorney-General Johnson, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: In Bank. Works, J. Searls, C. J., Sharpstein, J., Paterson, J., Thornton, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          WORKS, Judge

          [19 P. 522] The appellant was found guilty in the court below of the crime of rape. The appeal purports to be from a judgment of conviction, but no judgment appears in the record.

The minutes of the court, as set out in the transcript, contain this recital:

         " Argument on motion for a new trial, by Crawford, Esq., attorney for defendant. Motion overruled. Defendant sentenced to the penitentiary at Folsom for fourteen years ."

         This is a mere recital in the minutes that sentence was passed, and not the judgment of the court, from which alone an appeal will lie. (Pen. Code, secs. 1237, 1240.) The bill of exceptions contains a statement that "defendant appealed to the supreme court from the order denying defendant's motion for a new trial, and from the final judgment of conviction," but the notice of appeal is from the "judgment rendered against him on the fourteenth day of May, 1888."

         The minutes of the court for that day show a continuance of the case until the 16th of the same month.

         An appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial, if properly made, could not be effective, as the record fails to show the grounds on which the motion was made, or that such a motion was made at all.

         Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

People v. Lenon

Supreme Court of California
Oct 30, 1888
77 Cal. 308 (Cal. 1888)
Case details for

People v. Lenon

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. L. C. LENON, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 30, 1888

Citations

77 Cal. 308 (Cal. 1888)
19 P. 521

Citing Cases

People v. Schmitz

That section is not controlled by the language of section 1240, that the notice must be filed with the clerk…

In re Sullivan

The directory, or we might say the executory, clause alone was void. That decision, therefore, throws but…