People v. Taylor

THE COURT.

Introduction

Defendant-appellant William Kenneth Taylor, following a denial of his motion to suppress evidence, pursuant to section 1538.5 Penal Code, waived a jury and submitted the matter on the transcript of the testimony taken at the preliminary hearing. The trial court found defendant guilty as charged in the two-count information of violation of sections 11530.1 (count I, planting and cultivating marijuana), and 11530 (count II, possession of marijuana) of the Health and Safety Code of California.

While the case was pending the defendant was on his own recognizance. Following conviction and consideration of the probation report, he was placed on summary probation for three years on condition he spend the first five months in the county jail. Bail on appeal was set at $5,000.

Defendant appeals on the grounds that the entry into his residence and the investigation of the rear yard of his residence were unlawful.

Appellant’s counsel filed an opening brief containing

3Vi

typewritten, single sided, 28-line pages. The brief actually consists of a total of 86 lines describing the case, listing the issues, followed by argument and conclusions, but citing no authorities whatever. Appellant’s opening brief is woefully inadequate. No reply brief was filed.

In

Tate

v.

Canonica,

180 Cal.App.2d 898 [5 Cal.Rptr. 28] at page 900 the court said: “Counsel’s duty to assist the court includes a duty to study and to discuss the available authorities, both in California and, at least where there are none in California, in other jurisdictions.”

The question of inadequate briefs on appeal was discussed in

In re Smith,

3 Cal.3d 192 [90 Cal.Rptr. 1, 474 P.2d 969], and reaffirmed in

People

v.

Lang,

11 Cal.3d 134 [113 Cal.Rptr. 9, 520 P.2d 393], which dealt with appointed counsel on indigent appeals as did their forerunners