[Download] "People v. Davis" by Supreme Court Of California In Bank # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: People v. Davis
- Author : Supreme Court Of California In Bank
- Release Date : January 26, 1965
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 52 KB
Description
[62 Cal2d Page 807] PETERS, J. Petitioner, under rule 31(a) of the California Rules of Court, seeks relief from his default in failing to file his notice of appeal within the 10-day period required by that rule. The rule itself provides for the granting of such relief in a proper case, and it is now settled law that the power thus conferred should be liberally exercised to avoid, if reasonably possible, the loss of the right to appeal. (See People v. Madrid, ante, pp. 602, 603 [43 Cal. Rptr. 638, 400 P.2d 750], where many of the prior cases so holding are cited and discussed.) The Attorney General and counsel for the petitioner, after examining the record, with commendable objectivity and fairness, have stipulated that without appointing a referee, without placing the case on the calendar for oral argument, and without the filing of briefs, the cause may be submitted upon the record on file.In a letter to this court dated April 23, 1965, the Attorney General, again with commendable fairness and objectivity, practically concedes that the requested relief should be granted. He states that upon examination of the record, and upon independent investigation, ""I am of [62 Cal2d Page 808] the opinion that a result favorable to the People is not reasonably foreseeable in view of the decisions of this court requiring the referee to resolve doubts in favor of the filing of a late notice of appeal."" The same letter states that the Attorney General has consulted with the attorney who represented Davis on the trial, and while such attorney denies that he promised to file a notice of appeal, and while the Attorney General has some evidence of a waiver and estoppel ""such evidence would not compel a finding in favor of the People and would not justify the delay and expense of a reference hearing.""