Freve v. State

Decision Date08 June 1967
Citation230 A.2d 230
PartiesGerard L. FREVE v. STATE of Maine et al.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

Gerard L. Freve, pro se.

John W. Benoit, Asst. Atty. Gen., Augusta, for appellees.

Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and TAPLEY, MARDEN, DUFRESNE and WEATHERBEE, JJ.

DUFRESNE, Justice.

Petitioner filed with a single Justice his petition for the writ of mandamus. It was dismissed upon the State's motion. His appeal from the dismissal was certified to the Chief Justice under the provisions of 14 M.R.S.A. § 5452. The State has filed with us a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution alleging the petitioner's failure to comply with the statutory mandate requiring that 'the appealing party shall, within 15 days thereafter (i. e. from the time notice of appeal shall have been given) forward to the Chief Justice his written argument upon such appeal and shall, within said 15 days, furnish the adverse party or his attorney with a copy of such argument.' The non-compliance is fact. We grant the motion.

In this State the procedure for obtaining relief through the use of the extraordinary writ of mandamus is largely controlled by statute and statutory prescriptions on appeal must be complied with or the appeal will be subject to dismissal. 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 5451, 5452; Rule 81(b) M.R.C.P.; Field and McKusick, Maine Civil Practice, Commentary § 81.4. The Legislature has provided a speedy procedure on appeal with the hope of securing an expeditious dispatch of appellate review of rulings of the sitting Justice in mandamus proceedings, but the legislative goal will not be attained unless the statutory procedural prerequisites are timely met. In support of the legislative policy, we rule that noncompliance with the requirement that appellant's written argument upon his appeal be forwarded to the Chief Justice and a copy thereof to the appellee within 15 days from the giving of the notice of appeal subjects the appeal to dismissal.

Even though however we dismiss the appeal on a procedural point, the result would be the same had the appeal been properly perfected by the timely dispatch by appellant of his written argument on appeal to the Chief Justice with to the appellee as required by statute.

Petitioner bases his alleged right to remedial relief in mandamus on the grounds that while on parole he was convicted of crimes for which he was sentenced to the county jail in Auburn, Maine, and held therein by the sheriff in full execution of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Higgins v. Robbins
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • April 28, 1970
    ...from jurisdiction. Mandamus we have held would not lie against the Warden under our post-conviction habeas corpus procedure. Freve v. State, Me., 230 A.2d 230. The Court below was entitled to find a valid reason for a declaratory judgment without consideration of the petitioner's request fo......
  • In re Estate of Maccomb
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • September 22, 2015
    ...¶ 1, 841 A.2d 814(per curiam); McNamara v. Elbthal,515 A.2d 747, 749 (Me.1986); Estate of Everett,460 A.2d at 1029–30; Freve v. State,230 A.2d 230, 230–31 (Me.1967); see also Coastal Ventures v. Alsham Plaza, LLC,2010 ME 63, ¶ 17 n. 5, 1 A.3d 416; Alley v. Alley,2004 ME 8, ¶ 5, 840 A.2d 107......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT