PEOPLE v. BACOS (1936)

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

PEOPLE v. BACOS et al.

Cr. 408.

Decided: November 12, 1936

Thomas Whelan, Dist. Atty., and William P. Mahedy, Deputy Dist. Atty., both of San Diego, for the People. A. Fairchild and Herman Allen, both of San Diego, for respondents.

The respondents have moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that no statement or application was ever filed by the appellant setting forth the grounds of the appeal, the points relied upon, and designating what portions of the phonographic reporter's notes it desired to have transcribed.

From the certificate of the clerk, dated October 9, 1936, it appears that an order granting the defendants' motion for a new trial was entered on August 27, 1936, that on that day the plaintiff gave oral notice of appeal to this court, that no statement on appeal has been filed, and that no request has been made to have a transcript prepared. Under these circumstances the motion should be granted. People v. Riga, 104 Cal.App. 477, 285 P. 1069; Pen. Code, § 1249; rule 2, § 7, of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

BARNARD, Presiding Justice.

We concur: MARKS, J.; JENNINGS, J.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network