Case ID: cal_77/html/0308-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Works, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 20468.
    In Bank.
    October 30, 1888.]
    THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. L. C. LENON, Appellant.
    Criminal Law—Judgment—Appeal—Record. — An attempted appeal from a judgment of conviction is ineffectual, and will be dismissed when the judgment is not embodied in the record on appeal.
    Id.—Entry in Minutes oe Court not Judgment. — An entry in the minutes of the court that the motion of the defendant for a new trial was overruled, and that he was sentenced to imprisonment, is not the judgment from which the appeal must be taken.
    Id — Order Refusing New Trial—Record must Show Motion and. Grounds therefor. — An appeal from an order refusing a new trial will not he considered when the record fails to show the grounds on which the motion was made, or that such a motion was made at all.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order refusing a new trial.
    Motion to dismiss appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      
      Hugh J. & William Crawford, for Appellant.
    
      Attorney-General Johnson, for Respondent.
   Works, J.

The appellant was found guilty in the court below of the crime of rape. The appeal purports to be from, a judgment of conviction, but no judgment appears in the record.

The minutes of the court* as set out in the transcript, .contain this recital:—

“ Argument on motion for a new trial, by Crawford, Esq., attorney for defendant. Motion overruled. Defendant sentenced to the penitentiary at Folsom for fourteen years.”

This is a mere recital in the minutes that sentence was passed, and not the judgment of the court, from which alone an appeal will lie. (Pen. Code, secs. 1237, 1240.) The bill of exceptions contains a statement that “ defendant appealed to the supreme court from the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, and from the final judgment of conviction,” but the notice of appeal is from the "judgment rendered against him on the fourteenth day of May, 1888.”

The minutes of the court for that day show a continuance of the case until the 16th of the same month.

An appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial, if properly made, could not be effective, as the record fails to show the grounds on which the motion was made, or that such a motion was made at all.

Appeal dismissed.

Searls, C. J., Shaktstein, J., Paterson, J., Thornton, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.