gno.law

People v. Hogue

California Court of Appeal · Crim. No. 2769 · 1935-09-10 · Published · 9 Cal. App. 2d 128 · 48 P.2d 1002 · 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 1264

THE PEOPLE v. J. FRANK HOGUE

Area
criminal
Panel
Crail (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Crail

CRAIL, P. J.

The Attorney-General moves to dismiss this appeal on the ground that appellant failed to file with the clerk and present an application to the trial court stating in general terms the grounds of the appeal and the points upon which he relies as required by section 7 of rule II of the Rules for the Supreme and District Courts of Appeal of the State of California.

Said rule requires that “the appellant must, within five days after giving notice of the appeal, file with the clerk and present an application to the trial court, stating in general terms the grounds of the appeal and the points upon which the appellant relies ...”

The appellant filed with the clerk a notice of appeal which contains the following sentence: ‘ ‘ This appeal is taken *129on questions of law and fact.” He also in open court requested that the court order the clerk to prepare a full and complete clerk's transcript, but he did not file with the clerk and present an application to the trial court stating in general terms the grounds of the appeal and the points upon which he relies. His grounds of appeal and the points upon which he relies were not presented at all. Therefore the appeal must be dismissed. (Gonzales v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. (2d) 260 [44 Pac. (2d) 320].)

The motion is granted.

Wood, J., and Fricke, J., pro tem., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus