Cross v. Superior Court
Before: Peters
PETERS, P. J.
The petition for a writ of mandate is submitted.
This case involves a dispute over the proper charge for the preparation by the court reporter of the reporter’s transcript on an appeal.
The facts, as disclosed by the pleadings of the parties, are as follows: Nancy Cross, the petitioner, desired to appeal in the action of
Cross
v.
Tustin,
She filed her notice of appeal, and the notice to prepare transcripts, as required by rule 4 of the Rules on Appeal. The court reporter, William R. MaeKay, estimated the cost of preparing the reporter’s transcript at $283.50, and this information was given by the clerk to petitioner. Petitioner, after unsuccessfully attempting to secure a reconsideration of this estimate, deposited the estimated sum with the clerk. After the transcript was prepared, the trial court fixed its cost at $234.75, ordered that sum paid to the reporter, and the balance of $48.75 returned to petitioner. The figure of $234.75 was based on the reporter’s estimate of the number of folios for an original and two copies. Thereafter, by actual word count, it was ascertained that the reporter had overcharged the litigant $26.85, for the original and two copies, and it was further ascertained that, if the litigant had ordered only an original and one copy, the proper charge should have been $161.70, in which event there was an overcharge of $73.05. The reporter offered to refund the admitted overcharge of $26.85, but claimed that the petitioner had ordered an original and two copies. Petitioner claimed that she had ordered but one copy. She tried, by various proceedings in the trial court, to have that court pass upon this disputed question of fact, but that court refused to do so. She thereupon applied to this court for a writ of mandate.
There can be no doubt of the propriety of this remedy. The trial court, and, where necessary, the appellate court, have complete control over the preparation of the record on appeal. Where relief is refused by the trial court, the
[596]
appellate court has inherent power to pass upon all questions dealing with the preparation of the record on appeal.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)