THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CHARLES R. REESE, Appellant

[Crim. No. 1079. First Appellate District, Division Two. July 25, 1923.] THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CHARLES R. REESE, Appellant. Criminal Law—Robbery—Appeal Without Merit.—On this appeal from a judgment of conviction of the crime of robbery, it not having been contended that appellant was innocent of the crime charged, or that there had been a miscarriage of justice, or that the verdict might have been different if certain alleged errors had not been committed, but the judgment having been attacked upon technical grounds only, none of which had any merit, the judgment was affirmed without discussion of the points raised. 1. Binding force of statute or court rule not to reverse for errors not amounting to miscarriage of justice, note, L. R. A. 1918B, 390. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Michael J. Roche, Judge. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Walter F. Lynch for Appellant. U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and John H. Riordan, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent. [MAJORITY — LANGDON, P. J.] LANGDON, P. J. The defendant was charged by indictment with the crime of robbery. He was convicted ánd the appeal is from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial. It is not contended upon appeal that appellant is innocent of the crime charged, nor that there has been a miscarriage of justice, nor that if the alleged errors had not been committed the verdict might have been different, but the judgment is attacked upon numerous technical grounds only, none of which have any merit whatsoever. Under the circumstances, since the judgment must be affirmed, a discussion of the points raised would serve no useful purpose. The judgment is affirmed. Sturtevant, J., and Nourse, J., concurred.