People v. Rutledge

California Court of Appeal

People v. Rutledge

300 P. 828, 114 Cal. App. 728, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 806

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 11, 1931

DocketDocket No. 124.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 300 P. 828 (People v. Rutledge) 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. Rutledge, 300 P. 828, 114 Cal. App. 728, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 806 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

JENNINGS, J.

Appellant was convicted in the Superior Court of Tulare County of the offense of issuing checks drawn upon certain banks wherein he did not have on deposit sufficient funds to meet said cheeks upon their presentation. Judgment was pronounced on May 1, 1931, on which day appellant gave written notice that he appealed from the judgment. The notice and application for a transcript of the phonographic reporter’s notes required to be filed under the provisions of section 7 of rule 2' of the Rules of the Judicial Council of the state of California promulgated for the Supreme Court and the District Courts of Appeal, was not filed. Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that said application has not been filed in conformity with the provisions of the said rule hereinabove mentioned. Section 7 of said rule 2 provides that upon an appeal by a defendant from a judgment of conviction the appellant must, within five days after giving notice of the appeal, file with the clerk of the court and present an application to the trial court stating in general terms the grounds of the appeal and the points upon which appellant relies, and designate what portions of the phonographic reporter’s notes it will be necessary to have transcribed to fairly present the points relied upon. The rule further provides as follows: “If such application is not filed within said time the appeal shall be dismissed. ’ ’

No appearance has been made in this court by appellant to resist the granting of the motion, and inasmuch as the filing of the application is made a necessary prerequisite to the prosecution of an appeal from a judgment of conviction, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal herein. (People v. Schroeder, 112 Cal. App. 550 [297 Pac. 105]; *730 People v. Riga, 104 Cal. App. 477 [285 Pac. 1069] ; People v. Davis, 103 Cal. App. 318 [284 Pac. 516]; People v. Shaw, 81 Cal. App. 312 [253 Pac. 747].)

It is therefore ordered that the motion of respondent to dismiss the appeal be granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Barnard, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred.

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

JENNINGS, J.

Appellant was convicted in the Superior Court of Tulare County of the offense of issuing checks drawn upon certain banks wherein he did not have on deposit sufficient funds to meet said cheeks upon their presentation. Judgment was pronounced on May 1, 1931, on which day appellant gave written notice that he appealed from the judgment. The notice and application for a transcript of the phonographic reporter’s notes required to be filed under the provisions of section 7 of rule 2' of the Rules of the Judicial Council of the state of California promulgated for the Supreme Court and the District Courts of Appeal, was not filed. Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that said application has not been filed in conformity with the provisions of the said rule hereinabove mentioned. Section 7 of said rule 2 provides that upon an appeal by a defendant from a judgment of conviction the appellant must, within five days after giving notice of the appeal, file with the clerk of the court and present an application to the trial court stating in general terms the grounds of the appeal and the points upon which appellant relies, and designate what portions of the phonographic reporter’s notes it will be necessary to have transcribed to fairly present the points relied upon. The rule further provides as follows: “If such application is not filed within said time the appeal shall be dismissed. ’ ’

No appearance has been made in this court by appellant to resist the granting of the motion, and inasmuch as the filing of the application is made a necessary prerequisite to the prosecution of an appeal from a judgment of conviction, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal herein. (People v. Schroeder, 112 Cal. App. 550 [297 Pac. 105]; *730 People v. Riga, 104 Cal. App. 477 [285 Pac. 1069] ; People v. Davis, 103 Cal. App. 318 [284 Pac. 516]; People v. Shaw, 81 Cal. App. 312 [253 Pac. 747].)

It is therefore ordered that the motion of respondent to dismiss the appeal be granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Barnard, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 P. 828, 114 Cal. App. 728, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rutledge-calctapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack