Stephens v. City of Anchorage

384 P.2d 959, 1963 Alas. LEXIS 154
CourtAlaska Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 5, 1963
DocketNo. 343
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 384 P.2d 959 (Stephens v. City of Anchorage) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alaska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stephens v. City of Anchorage, 384 P.2d 959, 1963 Alas. LEXIS 154 (Ala. 1963).

Opinion

DIMOND, Justice.

Stephens was found guilty in a district magistrate court of driving at an excessive speed and was fined $8. He appealed to the superior court where the case was heard on the record and the judgment and sentence affirmed. On appeal to this court Stephens presents six questions for review. We shall pass upon none of them, because the lateness of the appeal requires that it he dismissed.

The superior court’s order was entered September 13, 1962. Stephens filed a motion for rehearing which was denied on October 1, 1962. His notice of appeal to this court was not filed until January 14, 1963, which was well beyond the ten-day [960]*960period prescribed by Supreme Ct. R. 19 (b).1

There is nothing in the record which persuades us to relax or dispense with the time requirement for filing the notice of appeal.2 It is true, as Stephens points out, that the clerk of the superior court did not notify him of the entry of the order denying his motion for rehearing, in accordance with Crim.R. 44(c).3 But failure to give such notice does not in itself extend the time for taking an appeal; and in this case we do not consider the lack of formal notice as a factor which would impel us, in order to avoid injustice, to dispense with the time period prescribed by rule.

Stephens obviously was aware of the proceedings in the superior court. The day following entry of the order affirming the magistrate court’s judgment, he filed a motion for rehearing. On the same day he notified appellee’s counsel that the motion would be brought up for hearing before the court a week later, on September 21, 1962. At the time specified in the notice Stephens failed to appear in the superior court. The motion was denied ten days later, on October 1. Under these circumstances, we believe that Stephens should be charged with the duty of having to follow the progress of his motion for rehearing and to advise himself of its disposition by the court.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Related

Graybill v. State
522 P.2d 539 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
384 P.2d 959, 1963 Alas. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephens-v-city-of-anchorage-alaska-1963.