People v. Pantages

California Court of Appeal Mar 8, 1930 No. Docket No. 1922.Published

Before: Conret

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied the defendant's application for bail pending appeal, finding that the evidence did not establish that continued confinement posed an imminent danger to the defendant's life or health.

Issues

Does the appellate court have jurisdiction to hear a motion for bail pending appeal after it has been denied by the trial court?
Did the defendant demonstrate that his health condition requires release on bail to avoid imminent danger to his life?
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's prior applications for bail?

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it must be made to appear that there is such imminence of dangerous results to the life or health of the defendant as to obviously require his release from the custody of the sheriff.”

“we have reached the conclusion that the defendant may be retained in custody without imminent danger to his health or life by reason of such confinement.”

“The motion of appellant for admission to bail pending appeal is denied.”

CONRET, P. J.

In the Superior Court of Los Angeles County appellant was convicted of a felony and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison. His appeal from the judgment is now pending in this court.

. Appellant has now filed an application for admission to bail herein. He states, among other things, that since the date of his conviction circumstances of an extraordinary character have occurred, in that his confinement and detention in the county jail has caused recurrence in an active form of a heart disease with which he had been theretofore afflicted; and that at the time of filing his application (February 3, 1930) and for several weeks there has been such imminence of fatal results to the life and health of appellant as to require his removal from the county jail; that in the latter part of December, 1929, and again in the latter part of January, 1930, appellant applied to the Superior Court for admission to bail and that both of said applications were denied; that the denial of said applications m the Superior Court, under the circumstances fully set out in the affidavits, testimony and proceedings before that court, was an abuse of the discretion lodged in said court; that appellant is in imminent danger of losing his life as a result of such confinement, and that a situation exists authorizing this court in the exercise of its original appellate jurisdiction to order the release of appellant upon bail pending-appeal. The motion is based upon a certified copy of the proceedings before the Superior Court upon said two applications made to that court. The motion has been presented after notice duly given, and the record of the proceedings on said mo

[398]

tions before the Superior Court constitutes the evidence presented here.

The attorney-general and the district attorney of Los Angeles County appear for the People and resist the motion. They first object to the jurisdiction of this court to entertain such motion; although it is admitted that the same subject could be presented and determined in this court by writ of

habeas corpus.

We are inclined to the view that this objection is not well taken.

(People

People v. Pantages

AI Brief

CONRET, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief