People v. Davis
| Decision Date | 26 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 8529 |
| Citation | 402 P.2d 129,44 Cal.Rptr. 441,62 Cal.2d 806 |
| Parties | , 402 P.2d 129 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Eddle Leslie DAVIS, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
Eddie Leslie Davis, in pro. per., and Frank C. Morales, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for defendant and appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., and Gordon Ringer, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Petitioner, under rule 31(a) of the California Rules of Court, seeks relief from his default in failing to file his notice of appeal within the 10-day period required by that rule. The ruld itself provides for the granting of such relief in a proper case, and it is now settled law that the power thus conferred should be liberally exercised to avoid, if reasonably possible, the loss of the right to appeal. (See People v. Madrid, 62 A.C. 631, 632, 43 Cal.Rptr. 638, 400 P.2d 750, where many of the prior cases so holding are cited and discussed.)
The Attorney General and counsel for the petitioner, after examining the record, with commendable objectivity and fairness, have stipulated that without appointing a referee, without placing the case on the calendar for oral argument, and without the filing of briefs, the cause may be submitted upon the record on file. In a letter to this court dated April 23, 1965, the Attorney General, again with commendable fairness and objectivity, practically concedes that the requested relief should be granted. He states that upon examination of the record, and upon independent investigation, 'I am of the opinion that a result favorable to the People is not reasonably foreseeable in view of the decisions of this court requiring the referee to resolve doubts in favor of the filing of a late notice of appeal.' The same letter states that the Attorney General has consulted with the attorney who represented Davis on the trial, and while such attorney denies that he promised to file a notice of appeal, and while the Attorney General has some evidence of a waiver and estoppel 'such evidence would not compel a finding in favor of the People and would not justify the delay and expense of a reference hearing.'
In view of these concessions little need be said about the facts of this case. It appears that petitioner was sentenced by the San Diego Superior Court on March 13, 1964. He presented for filing his belated notice of appeal some seven months later on October 2, 1964. From the uncontradicted allegations of the petition for relief filed by petitioner it appears that he was at the time of conviction, ignorant of appellate procedures; that the trial attorney failed to inform petitioner of his legal rights or of the procedures incident to an appeal; that petitioner reasonably believed that his counsel would file a notice of appeal; that after he was sentenced he was unable to communicate with his counsel; that he did not learn that an appeal had not been filed until just prior to the date he attempted to file the belated notice of appeal; that after he was sentenced and while still in the county jail in San Diego he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gardella v. Field
...for an excusable failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Rule 31(a), Cal.Rules of Court.5 See, e. g., People v. Davis, 62 Cal.2d 806, 44 Cal.Rptr. 441, 402 P.2d 129 (1965). If the reasons for petitioner's failure to obtain appellate review are unwarranted, it is manifest that petitioner ......
-
People v. Mathis, Cr. 8143
...waived the error is to ignore realities and to condone the very thing Escobedo and Dorado tried to prohibit. (See People v. Davis, 62 A.C. 855, 44 Cal.Rptr. 441, 402 P.2d 129.) This we should not In my opinion the admission into evidence of this recorded statement was prejudicial in the rev......
-
Gingrich v. Oberhauser
...is liberally exercised in California. People v. Garcia, 63 Cal.2d 265, 46 Cal.Rptr. 324, 405 P.2d 148 (1965); People v. Davis, 62 Cal.2d 806, 44 Cal.Rptr. 441, 402 P.2d 129 (1965). The Federal courts should permit the state court to determine whether petitioner has a meritorious case for fi......
-
Anderson, In re, Cr. 14202
...five-month delay during which the petitioner was unaware that a promised appeal had not been prosecuted. In People v. Davis (1965) 62 Cal.2d 806, 44 Cal.Rptr. 441, 402 P.2d 129, and in People v. Johnson (1964) 61 Cal.2d 843, 40 Cal.Rptr. 708, 395 P.2d 668, there were similar delays of seven......