In Re Garland

California Supreme Court Apr 3, 2001 No. S022481Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that appellate counsel's willful failure to comply with court orders to file an opening brief constitutes direct contempt of court. Consequently, the court adjudged counsel guilty of contempt and imposed a $500 fine.

Issues

Whether appellate counsel's failure to comply with court-ordered deadlines for filing an opening brief constitutes contempt of court.

Disposition. Guilty of contempt; fine imposed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court finds Garland has not complied with the court's October 25, 2000, and January 12, 2001, orders. The court also finds Garland was aware of, and had the ability to comply with, those orders and that his failure to do so was willful.”

“The court finds Jeffrey L. Garland guilty of contempt of this court.”

108 Cal.Rptr.2d 591 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1172 25 P.3d 1074 In re Jeffrey L. GARLAND on Contempt.

The People, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Martin Anthony Navarette, Defendant and Appellant.

No. S022481. Supreme Court of California.

April 3, 2001. Jeffrey L. Garland, in pro. per.; and Dennis A. Fischer, Santa Monica, for Jeffrey L. Garland.

THE COURT.

On August 14, 1991, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, appellant Martin Anthony Navarette was sentenced to death. On August 24, 1994, this court appointed Jeffrey L. Garland to represent appellant in his automatic appeal, People v. Navarette (S022481, app.pending), and any related habeas corpus proceedings. The record on appeal was certified and filed with this court on December 10, 1997, and included a reporter's transcript of 2,604 pages and a clerk's transcript of 2,689 pages. This court informed Garland by letter dated December 10, 1997, that appellant's opening brief was due on January 20, 1998. This court thereafter granted requests for extensions of time to file appellant's opening brief on January 14, 1998, April 15, 1998, May 19, 1998, June 19, 1998, July 17, 1998, September 23, 1998, October 28, 1998, November 23, 1998, and December 30, 1998.

On February 26, 1999, we granted Garland's 10th request for an extension of time to file the opening brief to and including April 23, 1999, but stated in our order: "No further extensions of time are contemplated."

On May 12, 1999, we granted Garland's 11th request for an extension of time to file the opening brief to and including June 22, 1999, stating in our order that the extension was based on "Garland's April 22, 1999, declaration that he `expect[s] to complete [his] draft of the substantive portions of the opening brief ... within the next 60 days.'"

On July 1, 1999, we granted Garland's 12th request for an extension of time to file the opening brief to and including August [592] 23, 1999, but stated once again: "No further extensions of time are contemplated."

On September 2, 1999, we granted Garland's 13th request for an extension of time to file the opening brief to and including November 22, 1999, but stated in our order: "No further extensions of time will be granted."

In Re Garland

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief