Case Name: THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. W. H. DUNNING, Appellant
Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1910-04-25
Citations: 13 Cal. App. 300
Docket Number: Crim. No. 113
Parties: THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. W. H. DUNNING, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 300–300

Head Matter:
[Crim. No. 113.
Third Appellate District.
April 25, 1910.]
THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. W. H. DUNNING, Appellant.
Criminal Daw—Dewd and Lascivious Conduct With Child—Nonappearance for Appellant—■ Absence of Error — Affirmance.— Where a defendant convicted of the crime of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, as provided in section 288 of the Penal Code, has appealed to this court, and no brief has been filed by appellant, and no - appearance entered in his behalf for oral argument, and it appears from an examination of the record that the evidence abundantly supports the verdict, that the instructions are correct, and that no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of appellant appears to have been committed, the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Solano County, and from an order denying a new trial. A. J. Buckles, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Carl E. Lindsay, for Appellant.
U. S. Webb, Attorney General, and J. Charles Jones, for Respondent.

Opinion:
BURNETT, J.
Defendant was convicted of the crime of lewd -and lascivious conduct with a child, as provided in section 288 of the Penal Code, and he appealed from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial.
No brief has been filed by appellant and no appearance was' made on his behalf when the cause was called for oral argument. The record, however, has been carefully examined and we find that the evidence abundantly supports the verdict, the instructions fully and accurately presented the questions of law involved and no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of appellant appears to have been committed. The judgment and order are therefore affirmed.
Chipman, P. J., and Hart, J., concurred.