People v. Burns, Cr. 2694
Decision Date | 08 July 1957 |
Docket Number | Cr. 2694 |
Citation | 152 Cal.App.2d 329,314 P.2d 79 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jack Odell BURNS, Defendant and Appellant. |
John H. Paine, Sacramento, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., by Doris H. Maier and Lloyd Hinkelman, Deputies, Sacramento, for respondent.
This is a motion to dismiss the appeal of Jack Odell Burns on the ground that the notice of appeal was premature and therefore this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Defendant was charged with the crime of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily harm. Penal Code, sec. 245. He was found guilty of the offense. His counsel made a motion for a new trial which was denied on April 12, 1956. His counsel then made a motion for probation. On April 23, 1956, counsel for defendant filed a notice of appeal dated April 20, 1956, from the 'judgment rendered in said action, and from the order denying a new trial in said action, and from all orders denying defendant's right to assert defenses of res adjudicata and/or former jeopardy, and from each thereof, and from the whole thereof.' On May 11, 1956, the trial court denied probation and pronounced judgment against defendant. No notice of appeal was filed after the judgment was pronounced.
Respondent contends that the notice of appeal was not filed within the time prescribed by Rule 31 of the Rules of Appeal, and that the notice is premature and therefore a nullity. Rule 31 reads as follows:
Since the record shows that the judgment had not been rendered, and also that probation had been granted at the time that the notice of appeal was filed, it clearly appears that the notice of appeal was not filed within the time prescribed by Rule 31.
The provisions of Rule 31 of the Rules on Appeal have been held controlling as to the time within which such appeals must be taken. People v. Behrmann, 34 Cal.2d 459, 211 P.2d 575; In re Horowitz, 33 Cal.2d 534, 203 P.2d 513; People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 594, 305 P.2d 18; People v. Walsh, 129 Cal.App.2d 327, 277 P.2d 73; People v. Cox, 120 Cal.App.2d 246, 260 P.2d 1050.
In the case of People v. Riser, supra, the California Supreme Court stated, 47 Cal.2d at page 595, 305 P.2d at page 20, that though 'the state, which establishes the time limit for appeals, may not frustrate those within its control from meeting the requirement, whether by the slowness of prison methods or by the negligence or misleading assurances of its employees,' yet 'The state has no duty to see that every convicted prisoner perfects an appeal, nor is it responsible should the public defender fail to act. * * *'
In this matter, the state in no manner has frustrated the defendant's right to appeal. The filing of the notice of appeal was clearly premature. It was an attempt to appeal from a judgment which as yet had not been entered or rendered. Although it also purported to be an appeal from an order denying a new trial, the court had not as yet acted on the motion for probation nor had it rendered judgment. Therefore, under the specific language of Rule 31 of the Rules on Appeal, the notice of appeal was premature.
Even prior to the adoption of Rule 31 of the Rules on Appeal, a similar holding was arrived at by the court in the case of People v. Wilson, 7 Cal.App.2d 543, 46 P.2d 229. There an oral notice of appeal was given at the time the verdict was entered but a written notice of appeal was not timely filed. The court held that the oral notice which would have been proper at the time of the pronouncement of judgment (under the statutes then in force) was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Gissel
...also United States v. Mathews, 462 F.2d 182 (3rd Cir.1972); State v. Johnson, 18 Ariz.App. 474, 503 P.2d 829 (1973); People v. Burns, 152 Cal.App.2d 329, 314 P.2d 79 (1957); People v. Bowman, 132 Cal.App.Supp.2d 915, 282 P.2d 1042 (1955); State v. Bulgo, 45 Haw. 501, 370 P.2d 480 (Hawaii 19......
-
Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage Dist. v. Jarvis
... ... Burns v. Brown, 27 Cal.2d 631, 166 P.2d 1; 35 Calif.Law Rev. 477, 488--Witkin, Four Years of the Rules on ... ...