State v. Lee

Hawaii Supreme Court

State v. Lee

353 P.2d 184, 44 Haw. 288

CourtHawaii Supreme Court

DecidedMay 27, 1960

DocketNo. 4184

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 353 P.2d 184 (State v. Lee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Lee, 353 P.2d 184, 44 Haw. 288 (haw 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Daniel S. W. Lee and John Stanley Flores, appellants, were convicted in the circuit court, first circuit, of assault and battery with intent to commit a felony. After conviction and sentence, they filed an application to appeal by way of writ of error in forma pauperis. In the application, they set forth the actions of the court to which exceptions were taken and allowed and which they considered erroneous. The court denied the application upon a written certification that the appeal was frivolous and not taken in good faith, and filed an opinion in which it set forth its reasons for the denial. Following such denial, appellants sued out writ of error to obtain appellate review of the denial. In the preparation and presentation of their application for writ of error, appellants had the assistance of court-appointed counsel, who presented to this court his statement on the question whether the court erred in denying the application.

Upon review of the circuit court file, including the clerk’s minutes and the court’s opinion setting forth its reasons for the denial of appeal in forma pauperis and the appeal documents on file in this court, we find no error in the denial.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Daniel S. W. Lee and John Stanley Flores, appellants, were convicted in the circuit court, first circuit, of assault and battery with intent to commit a felony. After conviction and sentence, they filed an application to appeal by way of writ of error in forma pauperis. In the application, they set forth the actions of the court to which exceptions were taken and allowed and which they considered erroneous. The court denied the application upon a written certification that the appeal was frivolous and not taken in good faith, and filed an opinion in which it set forth its reasons for the denial. Following such denial, appellants sued out writ of error to obtain appellate review of the denial. In the preparation and presentation of their application for writ of error, appellants had the assistance of court-appointed counsel, who presented to this court his statement on the question whether the court erred in denying the application.

Upon review of the circuit court file, including the clerk’s minutes and the court’s opinion setting forth its reasons for the denial of appeal in forma pauperis and the appeal documents on file in this court, we find no error in the denial.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 P.2d 184, 44 Haw. 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lee-haw-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack