Case ID: cal-app_20/html/0406-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ALLEN, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Crim. No. 262.
    Second Appellate District.
    November 23, 1912.]
    THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. KATE MEASOR, Appellant.
    Criminal Law—Failure to Give Statutory Notice—Failure to File Points and Authorities or to Appeal—Absence op Error— Affirmance of Judgment.—Where the record upon appeal fails to disclose that notice has been given as required by section 1247 of the Penal Code, under the provisions of which the appeal was ineffectual, and where no points and authorities have been filed, and there was no appearance for argument, and upon examination of the record no prejudicial error appears therein, the judgment will be affirmed.
    
      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County. Z. B. West, Judge.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Henry W. Nisbet, and Dick Foye Harding, for Appellant.
    U. S. Webb, Attorney-General,. and George Beebe, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.
   ALLEN, P. J.

At thecalling of the calendar for the October term, upon which calendar this cause appeared, attention of counsel for appellant was called to the fact that the record failed to disclose that notice had been given as required by section 1247 of the Penal Code, without which notice, by the provisions of said section, an appeal was ineffectual. It was then stated by counsel that such notice had been given, and a diminution of the record was suggested and permission given to the defendant to supplement her record with a copy of such notice. No oral argument was made, but counsel for defendant obtained ten days’ time within which to file points and authorities in support of the appeal. No points and authorities have been filed; the defect in the record has not been cured; and, in addition, in order that injustice might not be done the defendant by reason of the neglect of her counsel, we have taken the trouble to examine the record and we find no prejudicial error therein. The judgment is, therefore, ordered affirmed.

James, J., and Shaw, J., concurred.