Heeley

Defendant was convicted upon a criminal charge and appeals from the judgment and from an order of the trial court denying his motion for a new trial.

The only point made by appellant is that the trial court erred in denying a motion to dismiss the information under which he was prosecuted, on the ground that it was not filed within fifteen days after he was committed by the magistrate who conducted his preliminary examination. This exact question has been decided by us lately in the proceeding entitled Gillis v. Superior Court, 89 Cal. App. 687 [ 265 Pac. 360 ], the opinion in which has not yet become final. We there said:

Nothing is presented by appellant in his brief which affects the conclusion reached by us in Gillis v. Superior Court .

Judgment and order affirmed.

Craig, J., and Thompson, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on April 30, 1928, and a petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on May 31, 1928.

All the Justices concurred.