People v. Buffalo

California Court of Appeal

People v. Buffalo

49 Cal. App. 3d 838, 123 Cal. Rptr. 308, 1975 Cal. App. LEXIS 1256

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 10, 1975

DocketCrim. 6791

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 49 Cal. App. 3d 838 (People v. Buffalo) 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

People v. Buffalo, 49 Cal. App. 3d 838, 123 Cal. Rptr. 308, 1975 Cal. App. LEXIS 1256 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

The People move to dismiss defendant Joseph William Buffalo’s appeal from his conviction of second degree murder. After his trial in Orange County, Buffalo was returned to federal custody to finish serving a previously imposed sentence before beginning service on the state sentence imposed for the murder conviction. Released by error, he is now a fugitive from both state and federal authorities.

Dismissal of the appeal is within the court’s discretion (People v. Redinger, 55 Cal. 290, 296). Although previous cases dismissing appeals deal with defendants who have escaped and are fugitives from justice, how the person came to be at large is not important. The crucial fact is Buffalo is not in either actual or constructive custody and is a fugitive.

“[CJourts have no jurisdiction over persons charged with crime, unless in custody actual or constructive. It would be a farce to proceed in a criminal cause, unless the Court had control over the person charged, so that its judgment might be made effective.” (People v. Redinger, 55 Cal. 290, 298.)

We exercise our discretion to refuse to consider the appeal of one who is not answerable to court processes.

It is ordered the appeal be dismissed unless Buffalo, within 30 days from this date, returns to the custody of proper authorities (People v. Clark, 198 Cal. 453, 454 [245 P. 1112]; People v. Fuhr, 198 Cal. 593, 594 [246 P. 1116]).

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

Opinion

THE COURT.

The People move to dismiss defendant Joseph William Buffalo’s appeal from his conviction of second degree murder. After his trial in Orange County, Buffalo was returned to federal custody to finish serving a previously imposed sentence before beginning service on the state sentence imposed for the murder conviction. Released by error, he is now a fugitive from both state and federal authorities.

Dismissal of the appeal is within the court’s discretion (People v. Redinger, 55 Cal. 290, 296). Although previous cases dismissing appeals deal with defendants who have escaped and are fugitives from justice, how the person came to be at large is not important. The crucial fact is Buffalo is not in either actual or constructive custody and is a fugitive.

“[CJourts have no jurisdiction over persons charged with crime, unless in custody actual or constructive. It would be a farce to proceed in a criminal cause, unless the Court had control over the person charged, so that its judgment might be made effective.” (People v. Redinger, 55 Cal. 290, 298.)

We exercise our discretion to refuse to consider the appeal of one who is not answerable to court processes.

It is ordered the appeal be dismissed unless Buffalo, within 30 days from this date, returns to the custody of proper authorities (People v. Clark, 198 Cal. 453, 454 [245 P. 1112]; People v. Fuhr, 198 Cal. 593, 594 [246 P. 1116]).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Cal. App. 3d 838, 123 Cal. Rptr. 308, 1975 Cal. App. LEXIS 1256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-buffalo-calctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack