Case ID: ariz_18/html/0535-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PEE CUBIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Criminal No. 411.
    Filed April 18, 1917.]
    [164 Pac. 317.]
    A. L. HAMMOND, Appellant, v. STATE, Respondent.
    Criminal Law — Appeal and Error — Failure to Set Out Evidence— Extent of Review. — Where accused submitted cause on judgment-roll forming transcript on appeal with no record of evidence, made no appearance by argument or brief, the judgment will be affirmed, where it does not appear that any substantial right has been denied.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yavapai. Frank O. Smith, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    Mr. Eobert E. Morrison, for Appellant.
    Mr. Wiley E. Jones, Attorney General, and Mr. P. W. 0 ’Sullivan, County Attorney, and Mr. J. H. Morgan, Deputy County Attorney, for the State.
   PEE CUBIAM.

Information for violating the prohibition amendment to the Constitution, and an appeal from the judgment of conviction and order overruling his motion for a new trial.

The cause is submitted to this court on the judgment-roll forming the transcript on appeal. The evidence is not in the record. The appellant makes no appearance and gives no assistance to the court by way of argument, brief, or assignment of errors. The record has been examined for fundamental error, and we fail to find that any substantial right of the appellant has been denied.

The judgment and order must be, and are therefore, affirmed.