TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Ali

The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. M. ALI, Appellant

People v. Ali, 176 P. 883 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 4, 1918
Docket
No. Crim. No. 622.
Judges
Conrey
Citations
176 P. 88338 Cal. App. 5441918 Cal. App. LEXIS 164
Cited by 6
Headnotes
Criminal Law—Appeal—Application Stating Grounds—Failure to File.—Section 1247 of the Penal Code, requiring the filing of an application stating the grounds of an appeal is mandatory, and for the failure to file such application within the time prescribed, an appeal in a criminal action must be dismissed,
Summary
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Conrey

CONREY, P. J.

In the court below the defendant was convicted of the crime of embezzlement. He gave notice of *545 appeal from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. A clerk’s transcript and a reporter’s transcript of all of the evidence received at the trial (excepting a certain exhibit) are on file in this court. The attorney-general objects to any consideration of these appeals for the reason that the record does not show that an application stating the grounds of the appeal was filed by the defendant as required by section 1247 of the Penal Code. This objection was called to the attention of defendant’s attorney by the service upon him of respondent’s brief more than a month prior to the submission of the case in this court. No suggestion has been -made that the record is incomplete, and we therefore assume that appellant failed to comply with the requirements of said section 1247, by neglecting to file the application required by that section. The filing of such application is mandatory. The section itself declares that “if such application is not filed within said time, the appeal is wholly ineffectual and shall be deemed dismissed and the judgment or order may be enforced as if no appeal had been taken.”

(Rhodes v. Sargent, 17 Cal. App. 54, 56 , [ 118 Pac. 727 ] ;

People v. Measor, 20 Cal. App. 406 , [ 129 Pac. 469 ].)

The appeals are dismissed.

James, J., and Myers, J., pro tem., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →
1923: 31926: 11927: 11931: 119232026peak 1923 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Shaw253 P. 747 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
  2. People v. Flaherty215 P. 699 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
  3. People v. Mahach213 P. 539 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
  4. People v. Hill248 P. 714 (Cal. Ct. App. 1926)
  5. People v. Sanders214 P. 246 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
  6. People v. Gross4 P.2d 963 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)

Most recent

  1. People v. Gross4 P.2d 963 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)
  2. People v. Shaw253 P. 747 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
  3. People v. Hill248 P. 714 (Cal. Ct. App. 1926)
  4. People v. Flaherty215 P. 699 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
  5. People v. Sanders214 P. 246 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
  6. People v. Mahach213 P. 539 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Rhodes v. Sargent, 118 P. 727 (Cal. Ct. App. 1911) 9
People v. Measor, 129 P. 469 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list