Case ID: cal-app_75/html/0679-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      THE COURT.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Crim. No. 1255.
    Second Appellate District, Division One.
    December 21, 1925.]
    THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. GEORGE HART et al., Appellants.
    [l] Criminal Law—Appeal—Failure to File Bribes—Appearance— Dismissal.—Upon appeals by two defendants from a judgment of conviction of burglary, where no briefs were filed on behalf of defendants and it appears that the Case was set twice for oral argument, and was continued because of letters of request from one of the defendants; that on the third call of the case no appearance was made on behalf of said defendant, but that counsel appearing for the other defendant was granted time, which has expired, in which to file a brief and admits that the appeal of such defendant has not been perfected by the filing of the statement required by section 1247 of the Penal Code, and, so far as the record shows, the same defect exists in the appeal of the first defendant, the appeals will be dismissed.
    (1) 17 O. J., p. 196, n. 27.
    1. See 8 Cal. Jur. 553.
    APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County. E. A. Luce, Judge. Appeals dismissed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Edward J. Kelly for Appellant Kinney.
    U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and H. H. Linney, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.
   THE COURT.

No briefs were filed on. behalf of defendants. The case was set twice for oral argument, and was continued because of letters of request from defendant Hart. On the third call of the case no appearance was made on behalf of defendant Hart, but Edward J. Kelly, appearing for defendant Kinney, was granted time, which has expired, in which to file a brief. Mr. Kelly informs the court by letter that he admits that the appeal of Kinney has not been perfected by the filing of the statement and application required by section 1247 of the Penal Code. Apparently, so far as the record shows, the same defect exists in the appeal of Hart.

Because of the facts above stated, and because of the failure of defendant Hart to appear when the ease was called for argument (Pen. Code, sec. 1253), the appeals were dismissed.