People v. Sullivan

California Court of Appeal

People v. Sullivan

11 P.2d 420, 123 Cal. App. 436, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 1014

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 11, 1932

DocketDocket No. 230.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 11 P.2d 420 (People v. Sullivan) 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. Sullivan, 11 P.2d 420, 123 Cal. App. 436, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 1014 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

MARKS, J.

The record before us discloses that on February 11, 1932, the trial court made an order denying appellant’s motion for a new trial. At that time he gave an oral notice of appeal without specifying whether the appeal was taken from the order denying the motion for a new trial or from the judgment. From the context it would appear that it was taken from the order only. On February 25, 1932, the appellant filed a written notice of appeal from the judgment entered on the eleventh day of February, 1932, and on the same day filed a statement of his grounds of appeal and the points upon which he relied for a reversal of the judgment. No briefs have been filed on behalf of the appellant.

It is apparent that the only notice of appeal that might be considered effective for any purpose was the oral notice given on February 11, 1932. The written notice of appeal from the judgment was filed after the time prescribed by section 1239 of the Penal Code and is not effective for any purpose. The statement of grounds of appeal and the points upon which appellant relied for reversal of the judgment were filed too late, and under the provisions of section 7 of rule II of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal, the motion to dismiss the appeal must be granted. (People v. Schroeder, 112 Cal. App. 550 [297 Pac. 105].)

The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Barnard, P. J., and Scovel, J., pro iem., concurred.

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

MARKS, J.

The record before us discloses that on February 11, 1932, the trial court made an order denying appellant’s motion for a new trial. At that time he gave an oral notice of appeal without specifying whether the appeal was taken from the order denying the motion for a new trial or from the judgment. From the context it would appear that it was taken from the order only. On February 25, 1932, the appellant filed a written notice of appeal from the judgment entered on the eleventh day of February, 1932, and on the same day filed a statement of his grounds of appeal and the points upon which he relied for a reversal of the judgment. No briefs have been filed on behalf of the appellant.

It is apparent that the only notice of appeal that might be considered effective for any purpose was the oral notice given on February 11, 1932. The written notice of appeal from the judgment was filed after the time prescribed by section 1239 of the Penal Code and is not effective for any purpose. The statement of grounds of appeal and the points upon which appellant relied for reversal of the judgment were filed too late, and under the provisions of section 7 of rule II of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal, the motion to dismiss the appeal must be granted. (People v. Schroeder, 112 Cal. App. 550 [297 Pac. 105].)

The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Barnard, P. J., and Scovel, J., pro iem., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 P.2d 420, 123 Cal. App. 436, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 1014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sullivan-calctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack