Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.


Cr. 2982.

Decided: May 26, 1937

A. H. McConnell, of Long Beach, for appellant. U. S. Webb, Atty. Gen., and Paul D. McCormick, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the People.

The defendant appeals from a conviction of robbery of the first degree and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The defendant in his brief has failed to comply with rule VIII, section 2, of Rules of the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal, which requires that he “must present each point separately under an appropriate heading, showing the nature of the question to be presented or the point to be made.”

In the case of Sun Lumber Company v. Bradfield, 122 Cal.App. 391, 393, 10 P.(2d) 183, 184, it was said, “This rule applies to all briefs, regardless of length or number of points involved, and, under the provisions of the rule, failure to comply therewith may result in a dismissal of the appeal. This rule has been in effect for many years, and has been called to the attention of the bar in numerous opinions. Dismissals may be required to compel its observance.” The rule is not a mere technical requirement adopted without plan or purpose but was prescribed for the purpose of requiring the parties to direct the court's attention to specific errors of law alleged to have been committed by the trial court. The headings must show the nature of the question to be raised, thus facilitating the disposition of cases upon appeal. Graybeal v. Press–Telegram Pub. Co., 14 Cal.App.(2d) 252, 57 P.(2d) 1343; Battson v. Kirkpatrick, 11 Cal.App.(2d) 283, 53 P.(2d) 762; Bernstein v. Congregation Anshi, 14 Cal.App.(2d) 96, 57 P.(2d) 954; People v. Knight, 63 Cal.App. 63, 218 P. 79. This court has been enforcing this rule.

For the reason stated the appeal will be dismissed.

CRAIL, Presiding Justice.

I concur: McCOMB, J.