In Re Byrnes

California Supreme Court Aug 14, 1945 No. Crim. 4531Published

Before: Edmonds

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a prisoner prevented by state officials from perfecting an appeal is entitled to an opportunity to seek relief from default in the trial court to prepare a record for appeal, even if the prisoner has already served the sentence for one of the convictions. The court denied immediate release from custody, directing the petitioner to move the trial court for relief from default within 90 days.

Issues

Whether a prisoner is entitled to relief when state officials prevent the perfection of an appeal.
Whether a prisoner may pursue an appeal to clear his name after serving the full term of imprisonment for a conviction.
Whether the writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to secure an opportunity to perfect a pending appeal.

Disposition. remanded

EDMONDS, J.

In a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Frederick John Byrnes, now an inmate of the state prison at Folsom, asserted that after his trial and conviction upon two separate indictments, he was unable to perfect his appeal from each of the judgments because, in one case, the transcript of the proceedings was not furnished to him, and, in the other case, the transcript was wrongfully taken from him by prison officials. The writ issued and as the attorney general, by answer and stipulation, has admitted the truth of the essential facts related in the petition, the question for decision concerns the status of Byrnes under these circumstances.

Byrnes is now under sentences imposed upon him in 1932 by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County following two trials. He was first convicted of three offenses separately charged in the indictment. (Case No. 48763.) A month later he was tried and convicted upon a second indictment which charged him with the commission of four other crimes. (Case No. 48765.) By its judgments, the court ordered that the sentences for these seven offenses, which include kidnapping, rape and a violation of section 288 of the Penal Code, should run consecutively.

In the first trial, Byrnes was represented by counsel appointed by the court to defend him. His counsel noticed an appeal within the required time, obtained an order for the preparation of a transcript and then withdrew from the case. No transcript was completed in the form required for an appeal, but a copy of the testimony, in several parts as written

[826]

up each day by the stenographic reporter, is now on file in the office of the District Attorney of Los Angeles County. Following his conviction in the second trial, Byrnes gave timely notice of appeal, but his request for a transcript was denied upon the ground that he had each day been furnished with a record of the proceedings. However, upon the statement of Byrnes that some portions of the testimony which he had received during the trial were lost or had been stolen from him, at the request of the trial judge, the district attorney agreed to lend Byrnes copies of the missing volumes. The records of the district attorney’s office show that there were 14 volumes of this transcript; all of' them were taken from the office on August 26, 1932, and there is no information obtainable as to their present whereabouts.

In Re Byrnes

AI Brief

EDMONDS, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief