Walker

People v. Walker

Good Law
1900 Cal. LEXIS 1110·6 Cal. Unrep. 472·61 P. 800
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 9, 1900Cr. No. 583California726 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Cooper, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of embezzlement, and has appealed, or attempted to appeal, (1) from an order denying his motion in arrest of judgment; (2) from the final judgment; (3) from an order denying a motion to be discharged from imprisonment; (4) from an order denying a motion to vacate judgment; (5) from an order denying a motion to correct the minutes of the court as to arraignment of defendant; (6) from an order setting aside an order staying proceedings.

The order denying the motion in arrest of judgment could have been reviewed upon appeal from the judgment. It was not an order made after judgment, and is therefore not an order from which an appeal will lie: Pen. Code, secs. 1237, 1259; People v. Clarke, 42 Cal. 625 . The judgment was rendered February 6, 1898, and the appeal therefrom taken June 9, 1899. This was more than one year after the rendition thereof, and the appeal cannot be considered: Pen. Code, sec. 1239; Langan v. Langan, 89 Cal. 195 , 26 Pac. 764 . The motion to be discharged from imprisonment and the motion to vacate the judgment were, in fact, attempts to attack the validity and sufficiency of the judgment after the time for appealing…

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.