Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Joseph William BUFFALO, Defendant and Appellant.
OPINION
BY THE COURT.*
The People move to dismiss defendant Joseph William Buffalo's appeal from his conviction of second degree murder. After his trial in Orange County, Buffalo was returned to federal custody to finish serving a previously imposed sentence before beginning service on the state sentence imposed for the murder conviction. Released by error, he is now a fugitive from both state and federal authorities.
Dismissal of the appeal is within the court's discretion (People v. Redinger, 55 Cal. 290, 296). Although previous cases dismissing appeals deal with defendants who have escaped and are fugitives from justice, how the person came to be at large is not important. The crucial fact is Buffalo is not in either actual or constructive custody and is a fugitive.
‘(C)ourts have no jurisdiction over persons charged with crime, unless in custody actual or constructive. It would be a farce to proceed in a criminal cause, unless the Court had control over the person charged, so that its judgment might be made effective.’ (People v. Redinger, 55 Cal. 290, 298.)
We exercise our discretion to refuse to consider the appeal of one who is not answerable to court processes.
It is ordered the appeal be dismissed unless Buffalo, within thirty days from this date, returns to the custody of proper authorities (People v. Clark, 198 Cal. 453, 454, 245 P. 1112; People v. Fuhr, 198 Cal. 593, 594, 246 P. 1116).
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE. Before Brown, P.J., Ault, J., and Coughlin, J. (retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting under assignment by the Chairman of the Judicial Council).
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: Cr. 6791.
Decided: July 10, 1975
Court: Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)