People v. Johnson

This is another in the series of eases involving the proper interpretation and application of rule 31(a) 1 of the California Rules of Court. Two cases involving these problems have already been decided. (People v. Casillas, ante, p. 344 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 721 , 392 P.2d 521 ]; People v. Tucker, ante, p. 828 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 609 , 395 P.2d 449 ].) The Casillas ease, supra, determined that, in a proper ease, rule 31(a) confers the power on an appellate court to grant relief from a late filing of the notice of appeal in a criminal case, and that such power should be liberally exercised so as to protect the right of appeal. The Tucker case, supra, held that where the defendant, during the 10-day period in which the notice should be filed, tells his trial attorney that he desires to appeal, and the attorney states that he will do so but does not, and there are no grounds for waiver or estoppel, the court should grant relief.

The facts of this case bring it within the rule of the Tucker case, supra. Petitioner was convicted of robbery and sentenced on June 8,1962. He was then, and during his trial, represented by a deputy public defender from Los Angeles County. The referee appointed by this…