Vanderburg

People v. Vanderburg

Good Law
1924 Cal. App. LEXIS 278·67 Cal. App. 217·227 P. 621
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 10, 1924Crim. No. 750.California823 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Weyand, J.

The defendant, a prisoner regularly confined within the state prison, at Folsom, California, was, while serving his term of imprisonment, taken from said prison to the county of Trinity to work in road construction in that county, and while there he escaped from the surveillance of the prison guards. He was convicted of the offense and prosecutes this appeal.

The notice of appeal states that the appeal is taken from the final judgment of conviction and from the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

The grounds of the motion for a new trial do not appear. However, in the written application for a transcript of the testimony the “grounds of said appeal” as therein set forth are the usual grounds of motion for a new trial. However that may be, the ease will be dealt with as if a proper motion for a new trial was embodied in the record.

Appellant appears in his own behalf, and by a lengthy brief urges four main points wherein error was committed to his prejudice. First, it is claimed that as the offense was committed in Trinity County the superior court of Sacramento County had no jurisdiction; secondly, that no proper proof was given as to the fact that he was under…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.