Keaton v. Mun. Court of L.A.

CURTIS, J.—

Petition for writ of mandate directed to the respondent court and to the Honorable Caryl M. Sheldon, the judge of said court, commanding said court to settle and allow a proposed statement on appeal filed by petitioners in said court.

[53]

Petitioners were on the twenty-second day of March, 1929, convicted in the Municipal Court of the City of Los Angeles of the crime of petty theft. On the same day they each gave oral notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction entered against them on said twenty-second day of March, 1929. The petitioner Love, on March 30, 1929, and the petitioner Keaton, on the first day of April, 1929, filed written notice of appeal from said judgment, and on April 3, 1929, petitioners served and filed in said court their proposed statement on appeal from said judgments. Demand has been made upon the respondent court to settle said statement, but respondent has refused to settle said statement or to take any action thereon.

The ground upon which the respondent court bases its refusal to settle said statement is that while said statement was filed within five days after the giving of petitioners’ written notices of appeal, it was not served or filed within five days after the giving of their oral notice of appeal. This same point was raised and decided adversely to respondent’s contention by this court in the recent case of

Hansen

v.

Municipal Court,

208 Cal. 506 [282 Pac. 384]. Respondent contends that the Hansen case was erroneously decided and in support of its contention cites the following decisions of this court:

Hill

v.

Finnigan,

54 Cal. 311;

Brown

v.

Plummer,

70 Cal. 337 [11 Pac. 631] ;

Tompkins

v.