Hatten

People v. Hatten

Good Law
1966 Cal. LEXIS 251·49 Cal. Rptr. 373·64 Cal. 2d 224·411 P.2d 101
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 24, 1966Crim. No. 9159California1,891 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Peters, J.

Defendant seeks relief from his default in failing to file a notice of appeal in a criminal case within the 10-day period specified in rule 31(a) of the California Rules of Court. That rule provides for relief from default in a proper case. 1

The power conferred by the rule is to be liberally exercised to avoid, if possible, the loss of the right to appeal. It is now settled law that where the defendant, during the 10-day period, requests his attorney to appeal and the attorney promises but fails to do so, or where there is such a request but no promise, or where there is such a promise but no request, the defendant is entitled to relief. (See cases collected People v. Curry, 62 Cal.2d 207 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 17 , 397 P.2d 1009 ].)

The basic question presented in the instant case is whether the right to relief should be extended to a situation where there is neither a promise nor a request, but where the defendant is ignorant of his rights, and the trial attorney has not informed him of his right to appeal or of the procedures involved in exercising it. For reasons hereafter stated, we do not think the courts by judicial decision should so extend the rule. The right to appeal is, of…

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.