From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Robles

Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District
Sep 15, 1934
140 Cal.App. 683 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)

Opinion

Docket No. 302.

September 15, 1934.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County. G.K. Scovel, Judge. Affirmed on motion.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

J.H. Hearn for Appellant.

U.S. Webb, Attorney-General, and Frank Richards, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.


Appellant was convicted of the offense denominated "The infamous crime against Nature" in the Superior Court of Orange County and judgment was pronounced on June 29, 1934. On this same date he gave oral notice of appeal. No written notice of appeal was filed nor was an application stating in general terms the ground of appeal and the points upon which appellant would rely filed by him as required by section 7 of Rule II of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal. [1] Respondent now moves to dismiss the appeal for failure to file the above-mentioned application. Since section 7 of Rule II specifically provides that if the application is not filed within a period of five days after notice of appeal is given "the appeal shall be dismissed", it follows that the motion must be granted and the appeal dismissed. ( People v. Lewis, 219 Cal. 410, 414 [ 27 P.2d 73]; People v. Sullivan, 123 Cal.App. 436 [ 11 P.2d 420]; People v. Schroeder, 112 Cal.App. 550 [ 297 P. 105]; People v. Davis, 103 Cal.App. 318 [ 284 P. 516].)

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Barnard, P.J., and Marks, J., concurred.


Summaries of

People v. Robles

Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District
Sep 15, 1934
140 Cal.App. 683 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
Case details for

People v. Robles

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ROSO ROBLES, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District

Date published: Sep 15, 1934

Citations

140 Cal.App. 683 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
35 P.2d 1035

Citing Cases

People v. Appellate Dept. of Superior Ct.

[1] It is true that as the section read prior to its reenactment compliance therewith within the time limited…