Case ID: cal-app_37/html/0682-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THE COURT.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Crim. No. 438.
    Third Appellate District.
    June 27, 1918.]
    THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. FRANK PIMENTEL, Appellant.
    Criminal Law—Appeal—Support op Verdict—Presumption.—On appeal from a judgment and order denying a new trial in a criminal case, the presumption is that no prejudicial error was committed and that the verdict is amply supported.
    Id.—Bobbery—Verdict Supported by Evidence.—In this prosecution for robbery, it is held that the verdict is supported by the evidence.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County, and from an order denying a new trial. D. M. Young, Judge.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    B. M. Bainbridge, for Appellant.
    U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and J. Chas. Jones, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.
   THE COURT.

The defendant was convicted of robbery, and from the judgment and the order denying Ms motion for a hew trial he brings this appeal.

No appearance in Ms behalf has been made in this court and we have been furnished with no statement of any reason for disturbing the verdict found against the defendant.

Of course, the presumption is that no prejudicial error was committed and that the verdict is amply supported. We may add that we have sufficiently examined the record to be convinced that the defendant was justly convicted.

The judgment and order are affirmed.