TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Busby

THE PEOPLE v. W. J. BUSBY

People v. Busby, 45 P. 191 (Cal. 1896)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 5, 1896
Docket
No. Crim. No. 148
Citations
45 P. 191113 Cal. 1811896 Cal. LEXIS 763
Cited by 3
Syllabus
Criminal Law—Homicide—Appeal—Affirmance for Want of Brief— Sickness of Counsel—Appeal Without Merit.—Where, upon an appeal by a defendant convicted of murder, the judgment was affirmed for want of appearance or brief in behalf of the defendant, without an examination of the record, the appeal would" be reinstated upon a petition showing that the absence of a brief was owing to the sickness of counsel, provided such petition shows any plausible claim of error in the record; but where no such claim is advanced, and an examination of the record shows that the appeal is devoid of merit, the petition will be denied.
Summary
Petition to the Supreme Court to reinstate an appeal after judgment of affirmance. 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

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The Court.

The defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to be imprisoned for life. His appeal was placed upon the calendar for the May term, but when the case was called there was no appearance in his behalf and there was no brief on file. The judgment and order appealed from were therefore affirmed *182 without an examination of the record. His counsel now petitions the court to reinstate the appeal upon the ground that he was prevented by sickness from preparing a brief or appearing in court on the day set for the hearing.

We should feel compelled to accept this excuse as a sufficient ground for reinstating the appeal if counsel had pointed out in his petition any error in the record or any plausible claim of error. But no such claim is advanced, and upon an examination of the record the appeal appears to be devoid of merit.

Petition denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 3 cases

View all citing references →
1903: 11906: 11921: 119032026peak 1903 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Glaze72 P. 965 (Cal. 1903)
  2. State v. Cecchettini199 P. 1004 (Nev. 1921)
  3. People v. Sing84 P. 242 (Cal. Ct. App. 1906)

Most recent

  1. State v. Cecchettini199 P. 1004 (Nev. 1921)
  2. People v. Sing84 P. 242 (Cal. Ct. App. 1906)
  3. People v. Glaze72 P. 965 (Cal. 1903)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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