Criminal Law · MBE-tested
THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. WILLIAM H. BELL, Appellant
70 Cal. 33·Supreme Court of California·1886·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
[No. 20118.
In Bank.
June 22, 1886.]
THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. WILLIAM H. BELL, Appellant.
Cbimihal Law—Appeal—Tbahscbipt must Show See vice of Notice — Dismissal. — The transcript on appeal in a criminal case must show that the notice of appeal was served on the attorney of the adverse party; otherwise the appeal will he dismissed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.
Motion to dismiss appeal. The defendant was convicted of the crime of grand larceny. The further facts are stated in .the opinion of the court.
Robert Ferral, for Appellant.
Attorney-General Marshall, and J. N. E. Wilson, for Respondent.
[MAJORITY — The Court.]
The Court.
The transcript herein does not show that the notice of appeal was served on any one. The law requires that it shall be served on the attorneys of the adverse party (Penal Code, sec. 1240), and the transcript on appeal must show it. (People v. Phillips, 45 Cal. 44; People v. Clark, 49 Cal. 455.) This not being the case, the appeal cannot be considered.
Appeal dismissed.