Silverbrand

Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles

Bad Law
2009 Cal. LEXIS 3980·46 Cal. 4th 106·92 Cal. Rptr. 3d 595·205 P.3d 1047
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 23, 2009S143929California10,624 words

Opinion

Opinion

George, J.

The prison-delivery rule—as most recently articulated by this court—provides that a self-represented prisoner’s notice of appeal in a criminal case is deemed timely filed if, within the relevant period set forth in the California Rules of Court, the notice is delivered to prison authorities pursuant to the procedures established for prisoner mail. (See In re Jordan (1992) 4 Cal.4th 116 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 878 , 840 P.2d 983 ] (Jordan).) The question before us in this case is whether the prison-delivery rule properly applies to a self-represented prisoner’s filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case.

Rooted in common law and well established in California jurisprudence, the prison-delivery rule, also referred to as the prison mailbox rule, “ensures that an unrepresented defendant, confined during the period allowed for the filing of an appeal, is accorded an opportunity to comply with the filing requirements fully comparable to that provided to a defendant who is represented by counsel or who is not confined.” (Jordan, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 119 .) It also “furthers the efficient use of judicial resources by establishing a ‘bright-line’ test that permits courts to avoid…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.