Hartman

People v. Hartman

Good Law
1913 Cal. App. LEXIS 183·23 Cal. App. 72·137 P. 611
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 21, 1913Crim. No. 215.California3,510 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

Defendant was convicted by a jury upon an information charging a violation of section 270 of the Penal Code, the charging portions of said information being as follows:

No appeal lies from a motion in arrest of judgment or from the verdict. (People v. Lonnen, 139 Cal. 634 , [ 73 Pac. 586 ].) Nor is there an appeal, so far as we are advised, from the order suspending judgment and placing defendant on probation.

The attorney-general makes the point that “while the Penal Code has not repealed the section which states that in a criminal ease a defendant may appeal from an order denying a motion for new trial”—section 1237 specifically provides that an appeal may be taken by a defendant from an order denying a motion for a new trial—“the statute has utterly failed to provide machinery for taking an appeal” from such order. . . . “Up to this time neither the supreme court nor the district court of appeal has made or formulated any rule providing how a defendant shall take an appeal from an order denying a motion for new trial in a criminal ease. ” It is pointed out that prior to the amendment of section 1240 of the Penal Code (Stats. 1909, p. 1086) the appeal from such order was taken…

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.