Skip to main content

IN RE: the Application of Leslie C. GILLEN

Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

IN RE: the Application of Leslie C. GILLEN, On Behalf of Mabel MALOTTE, For Bail On Appeal.

Cr. 3146.

Decided: June 24, 1955

Leslie C. Gillen, John R. Golden, San Francisco, for petitioner. Edmund G. Brown, Atty, Gen., of the State of California, Clarence A. Linn, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Raymond M. Momboisse, Deputy Atty. Gen., Thomas C. Lynch, Dist. Atty., City and County of San Francisco, Norman Elkington, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Francisco, for respondent.

This is an application for bail pending appeal under Rule 32(b) after the trial court denied the application. After the filing of the application in this court the applicant was permitted to file additional affidavits relative to her present health and physical condition. The District Attorney and Attorney General were also permitted to file counter-affidavits.

When a convicted person seeks bail from an appellate court under Rule 32(b) the appellate court can grant bail after a denial by the lower court only if the appellate court finds that the denial by the lower court was unjustified. Since on the showing made in the lower court the denial of bail was not ‘unjustified,’ and since the only affidavits that would support the granting of bail are those filed in this court, it would seem that in such circumstances the present application should be denied and the petitioner granted leave to renew the application in the trial court based on the subsequent affidavits. People v. Perdue, 48 Cal. 552; Ex parte Curtis, 92 Cal. 188, 28 P. 223.

The application is denied with permission granted to petitioner to renew the application for bail in the trial court based upon the affidavits filed in this court and any other relevant evidence available.

PETERS, Presiding Justice.

BRAY and FRED B. WOOD, JJ., concur.

Copied to clipboard