Cleveland v. Municipal Court

California Court of Appeal Jun 21, 1971 No. Civ. No. 28309Published

Before: Kane

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. An indigent misdemeanor defendant is not entitled to a free reporter's transcript on appeal unless they first attempt to secure a settled statement and provide a reasonably particularized showing of why such a statement is inadequate to present their claims of error.

Issues

Whether an indigent misdemeanor defendant is entitled to a free reporter's transcript without first attempting to prepare a settled statement.
Whether the appellant provided a sufficiently particularized showing of the necessity for a free transcript.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The California Supreme Court has recently upheld the requirement that an indigent misdemeanor defendant must attempt to agree to a settled statement before being entitled to a free transcript.”

“It is not sufficient for indigent misdemeanor defendants to state in a general way that they need a transcript. . . . The petitioning defendants must show in a reasonably particularized presentation the reasons why they cannot inform the reviewing court by a settled statement of the claimed inadequacies and errors.”

[209]Opinion

KANE, J. Jonathan D. Cleveland appeals from a superior court judgment denying his petition for writ of mandate by which he sought to compel the preparation of a free reporter’s transcript for use in appealing his convictions of misdemeanor offenses.

On July 23, 1969, appellant was convicted of four misdemeanor offenses arising from disturbances occurring at San Francisco State College in January of that year. Thereafter he filed a notice of appeal to the appellate department of the superior court. He also filed a statement on appeal in the municipal court pursuant to rule 184 of the California Rules of Court, wherein he declared his intention to move the court to order preparation of a free transcript of the trial proceedings. He then listed the following 11 grounds of appeal:

“1. That certain erroneous rulings were made by the Court which were prejudicial to the defense.

“2. That certain misconduct, prejudicial to the defense, occurred during the trial.

“3. That the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.

“4. That Sections 404.6, 408, 409, and 415 of the Penal Code are unconstitutionally vague and indefinite.

“5. That Sections 404.6, 408, 409, and 415 of the Penal Code were unconstitutionally applied in this case.

“6. That the court should have granted defendant’s motion for separate appointment of counsel and severance.

“7. That the defendant was denied effective representation by counsel.

“8. That the court should have granted defendant’s motion for continuance based on excessive and prejudicial pretrial publicity.

“9. That the court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

“10. That the court erred in its instructions to the jury.

“11. That the court should not have denied the motion of the defendant to acquit.”

Appellant next filed in the municipal court a notice of motion for preparation of a free transcript stating that said motion “will be made on the ground that a settled statement cannot serve as an adequate record on appeal in this action, and on the ground that the said defendant is indi

Cleveland v. Municipal Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief