From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Reese

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two
Jul 25, 1923
63 Cal.App. 198 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)

Opinion

Crim. No. 1079.

July 25, 1923.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Michael J. Roche, Judge. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Walter F. Lynch for Appellant.

U.S. Webb, Attorney-General, and John H. Riordan, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.


The defendant was charged by indictment with the crime of robbery. He was convicted and the appeal is from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial.

[1] It is not contended upon appeal that appellant is innocent of the crime charged, nor that there has been a miscarriage of justice, nor that if the alleged errors had not been committed the verdict might have been different, but the judgment is attacked upon numerous technical grounds only, none of which have any merit whatsoever. Under the circumstances, since the judgment must be affirmed, a discussion of the points raised would serve no useful purpose.

The judgment is affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Nourse, J., concurred.


Summaries of

People v. Reese

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two
Jul 25, 1923
63 Cal.App. 198 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
Case details for

People v. Reese

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CHARLES R. REESE, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two

Date published: Jul 25, 1923

Citations

63 Cal.App. 198 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
218 P. 442

Citing Cases

Homami v. Iranzadi

If the plaintiff cannot open his case without showing that he has broken the law, the court will not assist…