Case ID: cal-app_62/html/0296-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BURNETT, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Crim. No. 685.
    Third Appellate District
    May 24, 1923.]
    THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. EDWARD LENNERT, Appellant.
    
       Criminal Law—Burglary — Evidence—Appeal. — On this appeal from a judgment of conviction of burglary and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, although there was no appearance for appellant in the appellate court and no argument submitted in his behalf, the transcript was examined but no error was found, and the evidence was found amply sufficient to justify the conviction.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Napa County and from an order denying a new trial. Percy S. King, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    No appearance for Appellant.
    U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and J. Charles Jones, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.
   BURNETT, J.

Appellant was convicted of three separate acts of burglary charged in one information in different counts and he has appealed from the judgment and an order denying his motion for a new trial.

There has been no appearance for him in this court nor has any argument been submitted in his behalf. We have, however, carefully examined the transcript and have found no error therein. The motion for a new trial was made solely upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict, but it was promptly denied by

the trial court. It would serve no useful purpose to set out the evidence, but we are satisfied that it was amply sufficient to justify the conviction.

The judgment and order are affirmed.

Hart, J., and Finch, P. J., concurred.