City of Portland v. Parchen
City of Portland v. Frank M. Parchen.
Opinion of the Court
McBRIDE, C. J.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal upon two grounds: First, that this court has no *210 jurisdiction; and, second, that the defendant is a fugitive from justice, and no bond on appeal has been filed, and no certificate of probable cause issued.
It appears from the record and an affidavit on the file that the defendant was arrested on the charge of violating city Ordinance No. 32,939 of the City of Portland, Oregon; that on the twelfth day of August, 1924, in municipal court, he was duly tried and convicted of the offense, adjudged guilty and sentenced to serve ninety days in jail and to pay a fine of $500; that thereupon he appealed to the Circuit Court of Multnomah County and upon trial in that court was again convicted of the offense charged, and on the twentieth day of October, 1924, it was adjudged that he should pay a fine of $500 and serve a jail sentence of six months in the city jail of the City of Portland. On October 24, 1924, he served and filed a notice of appeal to this court, and on the twenty-fourth day of 'December, 1924, filed his transcript on appeal here.
It appears from the affidavit that the defendant was by order of the Circuit Court on the seventh day of November, 1924, required to appear in person or perfect his appeal to the Supreme Court at that time by securing- a bond; that he has not secured any bond, nor perfected his appeal, nor rendered his person in execution of the judgment, but is a fugitive from justice.
It is a substantial and just rule that courts will not hear an appeal while the appellant is fleeing from justice, and this, of itself, would be sufficient reason for dismissing this appeal. But, aside from this, we have held, in the case of Portland v. White, 106 Or. 169 ( 211 Pac. 798 ), that no appeal lies from the Circuit Court to this court upon a judgment of conviction *211 in the Circuit Court for a violation of a city ordinance of the City of Portland.
The appeal will therefore be dismissed.
Appeal Dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“It is a substantial and just rule that courts will not hear an appeal while the appellant is fleeing from justice.”)
-
(“It is a substantial and just rule that courts will not hear an appeal while the appellant is fleeing from jus- tice, and this, of itself, would be sufficient reason for dismissing this appeal.”)
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.