Finley

Defendant was tried before a jury and convicted of receiving stolen property in violation of section *208 496, Penal Code. His motion for a new trial and application for probation were denied; defendant admitted a prior felony conviction; and he was sentenced to the state prison for the term prescribed by law. He appeals from judgment.

As his first claim for reversal, appellant urges that the “proceedings in the Courts below were irregular,” but fails to point out where in the record before us any error lies, relying entirely upon his argument that “on appeal every intendment and presumption not inconsistent with the records must be indulged in favor of the appellant.” We pass this matter without further discussion except to comment that the rule on appeal, contrary to his position, that appellant’s failure to meet the burden of pointing out the error complained of showing specifically what action of the lower court he deems error (People v. Daniels, 85 Cal.App.2d 182 [ 192 P.2d 788 ]; People v. Morgan, 140 Cal.App.2d 796 [ 296 P.2d 75 ]), and the presumption, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, that defendant was accorded a fair trial and the conviction was valid…