In Re Ephraim

California Court of Appeal

In Re Ephraim

237 P. 801, 73 Cal. App. 104, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 299

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 2, 1925

DocketDocket No. 1276.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 237 P. 801 (In Re Ephraim) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Ephraim, 237 P. 801, 73 Cal. App. 104, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 299 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

TYLER, P. J.

The applicant herein heretofore on April 23, 1925, filed in this court an appeal from an order denying him bail after conviction of a felony. (People v. Ephraim, 72 Cal. App. 479 [237 Pac. 801].)

It appeared therein that the superior court had made and filed a certificate of probable cause but denied the application for bail pending appeal upon the sole ground, so it was alleged, that it was not the practice of the court to allow bail in cases where the matter was one of discretion with it. In the opinion rendered by this court it was held that the denial of the motion was in effect an exercise of this discretion. It was there pointed out that section 1272 of the Penal Code declares when a defendant after conviction and pending an appeal may be admitted to bail, and that the appellate court ought not to interfere after a conviction of a felony and pending appeal, except where circumstances of an extraordinary character have intervened since the conviction.

The present application presents no such circumstances and it is therefore denied.

Knight, J., and Cashin, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TYLER, P. J.

The applicant herein heretofore on April 23, 1925, filed in this court an appeal from an order denying him bail after conviction of a felony. (People v. Ephraim, 72 Cal. App. 479 [237 Pac. 801].)

It appeared therein that the superior court had made and filed a certificate of probable cause but denied the application for bail pending appeal upon the sole ground, so it was alleged, that it was not the practice of the court to allow bail in cases where the matter was one of discretion with it. In the opinion rendered by this court it was held that the denial of the motion was in effect an exercise of this discretion. It was there pointed out that section 1272 of the Penal Code declares when a defendant after conviction and pending an appeal may be admitted to bail, and that the appellate court ought not to interfere after a conviction of a felony and pending appeal, except where circumstances of an extraordinary character have intervened since the conviction.

The present application presents no such circumstances and it is therefore denied.

Knight, J., and Cashin, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 P. 801, 73 Cal. App. 104, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ephraim-calctapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack