Legal Opinion

In Re Notz

California Supreme Court

Decided February 9, 1965No. Crim. 7878PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

In the Curry ease, supra, it was stated (ante, at p. 210) : “Under the rules of these eases it is now settled that where there is a request to appeal within the 10-day period by the defendant, and a promise of the attorney to do so, or where there is such a promise but no such request, or where there is such a request but no promise, absent grounds of waiver or estoppel, the defendant is entitled to relief. ’ ’

In the instant case there was both a request and a promise.

Petitioner was convicted of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496), a felony, in the Superior Court of the County of Los…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. TuckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  2. People v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  3. People v. CurryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  4. People v. DiehlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. People v. AcostaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  2. People v. BaileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  3. People v. CamarilloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  4. People v. MadridCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  5. People v. KrebsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API