Case ID: cal_132/html/0615-01.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. 707.
    Department Two.
    May 7, 1901.]
    THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ALFRED PELLER, Appellant.
    Criminal Law—Appeal without Consent of Defendant — Affirmance without Discussion. — Where no prejudicial error appears in the record, and the defendant, convicted of a felony, has in writing personally notified the court that the appeal was taken without his knowledge and against his express direction, and that he prefers to finish his term of imprisonment under the sentence, the judgment will be affirmed without a detailed discussion of the case.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sierra County and from an order denying a new trial. Stanley A. Smith, Judge.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    F. D. Soward, for Appellant.
    Tirey L. Ford, Attorney-General, Henry A. Melvin, and Frank R. Wehe, District Attorney, for Respondent.
   THE COURT.

—The defendant was convicted of an assault with a deadly weapon, and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment in the state prison; and an appeal appears to have been regularly taken on his behalf from the judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. We have examined the record and see no prejudicial error; and as we have recently received a written communication from the defendant, in which he states that he had just learned that the appeal had been taken; that it was taken without his knowledge and against his express direction; and that— while he asserts his innocence — he does not desire a new trial, but prefers to finish his short term of imprisonment,— we do not deem it necessary to enter upon a detailed discussion of the case.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.