In Re Watkins

THE COURT.

This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which in reality amounts to a petition for a “delayed appeal,” in that petitioner asks that “the trial court’s records be transcribed and delivered to the petitioner so that petitioner will be enabled to appeal his cause that was denied him in 1946.”

It is alleged in the petition that in May, 1946, petitioner was convicted of the crime of first degree murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life; that immediately following the pronouncement of judgment petitioner requested his “court-appointed counsel ... to file notice for an appeal”; that his attorney “said that he would file the motion for appeal as soon as he returned to his office.”

No notice of appeal was filed, and petitioner, on June 16, 1946, wrote to the judge who tried his case, requesting preparation of the clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts on appeal. Under date of June 20, 1946, the trial judge wrote petitioner as follows :

“Referring to your letter of June 16th, it does not seem

[587]

appropriate for me to make any order at this time for a transcript in your case, for apparently your time to appeal expired without your doing anything about it.

“This matter should be taken up with Mr. Samuelson (petitioner’s counsel) or some other attorney.”

Petitioner further avers that on June 21, 1946, he was transferred from the Los Angeles county jail to the state prison at San Quentin; that “while in the Guidance Center, petitioner was unable to get any kind of law books in order to find out just what steps one could take to get an appeal, or some other relief, and finally on the fourth day of March, 1947, petitioner was transferred to Quentin side and it was then that the petitioner could and did get some law books and began to study.”

Petitioner alleges that in an effort to secure relief from his default in the matter of giving timely notice, of appeal, he “filed a .petition for a review and a request for a new trial on the 13th day of June, 1947; this was presented to the court through the Public Defender’s Office and was denied the same day. ’ ’ In this connection petitioner further alleges: