Case Name: THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent, v. WILLIAM SUMMERS, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1874-10
Citations: 9 Nev. 399
Docket Number: No. 2
Parties: THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent, v. WILLIAM SUMMERS, Appellant,
Judges: 
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 399–400

Head Matter:
THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent, v. WILLIAM SUMMERS, Appellant,
[No. 2].
Criminal Law — Appeal from New Trial Order Too Late after Appeal from Judgment Disposed Of. Where a defendant in a criminal case, having taken an appeal from the judgment alone which was affirmed, took an appeal from the order overruling his motion for a new trial: Held, that the latter appeal was too late and should he dismissed.
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Douglas County.
Defendant was convicted on May 27, 1874, of murder in the first degree for the killing of Frank Bean and sentenced ■ to be hanged. At^the July term of this Court he appealed from the judgment alone, which was affirmed. See State v. Summers, [No. 1], ante, 269. After the disposition of that appeal, he took this appeal from the order overruling his motion for a new trial. The counsel for the State thereupon moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that it was too late.
L. A. Buchner, Attorney General, and George P. Harding, for Respondent.
Moses Tebbs and Thomas Wells, for Appellant.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Whitman, C. J.:
At the last term of this Court, the judgment of the district court was affirmed against appellant. Now he seeks to have an order refusing a new trial reversed. The application is tardy. Even admitting as claimed by counsel, that the Criminal Practice Act gives to a defendant a double appeal, one from an order similar to the present and one from a fina.1 judgment, still it does not follow that such appeals can be taken in inverse order; that would be practice too bad to be charged Lven to the exceedingly incongruous mass of provisions composing the Criminal Practice Act of this State.
"When the appellant brought up the judgment for review, he should have presented all anterior errors which he desired to correct. The error claimed in the present record, if existent, arose before the former appeal, and could and should have been therein considered, if so wished. It is too late to present it now; and the motion of respondent to dismiss the appeal is granted.
Let the order be so made.