It describes the characteristics and dispositions of criminal appeals. Contrary to popular impression, a conviction was reversed in only about 5 percent of these appeals. To explain the low reversal rate, the report draws upon interviews with Court of Appeal justices to examine the institutional norms and perspectives guiding the court's decisions. The justices describe the basic decision norms as norms of affirmance: for example, the harmless error rule and the substantial evidence rule incline the court to affirm despite certain legal errors or factual questions. Moreover, the particularistic approach the court typically takes in its decisionmaking apparently sensitizes it to the substantive characteristics prevailing in criminal appeals: the crimes are serious and there is little doubt about factual guilt. The low reversal rate and the analysis of the court's norms suggest that intermediate appellate review of criminal convictions is narrower and more constrained than the 'error correction' and 'supervision' labels imply. Implications of the case study for appellate policy are explored. Footnotes are included. (Author abstract modified)