Case Name: GRIPPEN v. STATE
Court: Supreme Court of Wyoming
Jurisdiction: Wyoming
Decision Date: 1912-07-08
Citations: 20 Wyo. 486
Docket Number: No. 693
Parties: GRIPPEN v. STATE.
Judges: Beard, C. J., and Scott, J., concur.
Reporter: Wyoming Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 486–493

Head Matter:
GRIPPEN v. STATE.
(No. 693.)
Criminal Raw — Appeal and Error — Briefs—Failure to File in Time — Waiver—Dismissal—Rules of Court.
1. Where briefs for the plaintiff in error are not filed or served within the time required by the rules, and no application for extension of time has been made or obtained, and no sufficient excuse for the failure to make such application or to file the briefs within the required time has been presented, the proceeding in error must, upon motion of the adverse party, be dismissed.
on petition for rehearing.
2. A proceeding in error to review a conviction in a criminal case is properly dismissed where the rule requiring the plaintiff in error to serve his briefs within 60 days after filing the petition in error was not complied with, but more than six months was allowed to elapse between the filing of the petition in error and the filing and service of the briefs, and the briefs were ,not filed or served until about’ five months after the original papers, including the bill of exceptions and the transcript .of the journal entries, .had been filed, and no order was made or applied for extending the time for filing and serving such briefs.
3. Since timely application for ail extension of time to file briefs ■ ’ is-’a proper remedy and such extension can be granted if the bill of exceptions is incomplete, • or cannot be procured or filed before the expiration of the time for filing briefs, it is not a reasonable excuse for the failure to comply with the- rule as to the time for filing briefs, that the hill of exceptions was incomplete and upon application of plaintiff in error was ordered withdrawn for the purpose of correction.
4. By merely accepting service of a brief of plaintiff' in' error in a criminal case the Attorney General does not waive the failure to file and serve such- brief within the time required by the rules of court.
5. The failure of plaintiff in error in a criminal case to file and serve his brief within the time required by the rules of court is not waived by the Attorney‘General in moving to dismiss the proceeding in error on the grounds that the bill of exceptions was insufficient, in that it did not-purport to contain all the evidenbe.
6. The fact that a" motion ‘to dismiss a proceeding in err'or in a criminal case was not filed until after the filing of the briefs of the plaintiff in error is not a waiver of the non-compliance of the plaintiff in error -with the rules of- the court as to the time for filing and serving briefs, and is not sufficient to justify a denial of the motion to dismiss.
7. Reasonable rules of procedure in appellate courts as well as in courts of original jurisdiction are not’ Unconstitutional but are necessary to avoid unreasonable -delays, as well as for the purpose of an orderly and intelligent presentation of a .case for determination. .
[Decided July 8, 1912.]
[Rehearing denied December 9, 1912.]
(124 Pac. 764.)
(128 Pac. 622.)
ERROR to the District Court, Weston County; Hon. C. H. ParmeeEE, Judge.
Charles A. Grippen was charged with a felony and convicted, and brought the case to the Supreme Court on error. Heard on motion to dismiss. The material facts are stated in the opinions.
'David A. Pokier, Allen G. Pisher and William P: Rooney, for plaintiff in error, contended on petition for rehearing that'th'e attorney general had accepted service of a copy of the brief of plaintiff in error, and thereby waived the delay in filing the same, and also waived the failure to comply with the rules in that respect by the filing of' a motion to dismiss the proceeding in error upon the ground that the bill of exceptions was incomplete. Counsel also contended that under the Constitution everyone is entitled to a resort to all the courts of the state without denial, and that a plaintiff in error ■in a criminal case should not be denied the right to have the ■record examined and his brief considered when the latter has been filed without objection previous to the service of •notice of the filing of a motion to dismiss And further that a brief is not due until a record is complete or agreed upon, and that the rigid‘enforcement of the rule for dismissal in a felony case, where there has been a failure to file briefs in time, is too severe.
D. A. Preston, Attorney General, for the state.

Opinion:
Potter, Justice.
The petition in error in this case was filed August 31, 1911. The'journal entries and the original papers, with the exception of the bill'of exceptions, were filed October 10, 1911. The bill of exceptions was filed October 28, 1911. The brief of plaintiff in error was not filed until March 18, 1912, and the attorney general, for the state, has moved for a dismissal of'the proceedings in error, one of the grounds of said motion being that the brief of the plaintiff in error was not filed within the time required by the rules of this court. The cause has been heard upon that motion.
Rule 15 provides that "within sixty days after filing his petition in error, the plaintiff in error in both civil and criminal causes shall file with the clerk four copies of his brief, and shall also within that period serve upon or mail to the opposite party, or his attorney of record, one other copy of such brief. Rule 16 provides that in all causes, both criminal and civil, in which the state is a party, counsel shall also serve a copy of their brief upon the attorney general. Rule 21 (104 Pac. xiv) provides:. "When the plaintiff in error or party holding the affirmative has failed to file and serve his brief as required by these rules, the defendant in error or party holding the negative may have the cause dis missed, or may submit it, with or without oral argument." Rule 20 (104 Pac. xiv) provides for an extension of' time for filing briefs, and that "by consent of parties, or for good cause shown before the expiration of the time allowed, the court or a justice thereof in vacation may extend the time for filing briefs." No application was made in this case for an extension of time for' filing the brief of plaintiff in error. On March 9, 1912, the plaintiff in error, by his counsel, filed a motion in this court for an order directing the return of the bill of exceptions to the trial court for correction, it being stated in the affidavit filed in support of the motion that certain books in the possession of the official court stenographer had been omitted from the bill, and that counsel upon presenting the bill to the trial court had understood that said books would be produced by the stenographer and incorporated in the bill. Upon that motion an order was made directing the return of the bill, and it was so returned. On March 26,, 1912, it was again received by the clerk of this court, together with a certified copy of an order of the district court denying the application made in that court for an amendment to the bill, and reciting with reference to the alleged omitted books that when the bill of exceptions was presented to the court on September 4, 1911, the books, exhibits, and copies sought to be incorporated in the bill were not then attached thereto or presented to the court to be incorporated therein or identified, and that no application was then made to withdraw the bill for the purpose of incorporating such books, exhibits or copies therein, but that such application was made for the first time in the district court after the return of the bill from this court.
Counsel for plaintiff in error urges as the only justification for the failure to file and serve their briefs within the time required by the rules that they understood that the filing and service of such briefs before the presentation of a ruling upon the motion to return the bill of exceptions for correction would waive their right to the assistance of this court in obtaining a correction or amendment of the bill. Inasmuch as it was- stated in the affidavit of counsel filed in support of the motion to return the bill for correction that they did not learn of the alleged omission from the bill until January 20, 1912, before which date the time for filing and serving briefs had expired, the ground now urged as an excuse for the failure to file and serve such briefs would not seem to be sustained by the facts appearing by the record. But however that may be, if -counsel were of the opinion that by filing and serving their briefs they would waive their right to have the bill amended or returned for amendment, they might have applied for an extension of time' for filing briefs before the time therefor had expired, and it was within the power of this court, which has been many times exercised, to protect the party by such extensions as might seem necessary or proper. (See Richardson v. State, 15 Wyo. 465, 89 Pac. 1027, 12 Ann. Cas. 1048.) No application for extension of time to file and serve briefs having been made or obtained, and no sufficient excuse for the failure to make such application or to file the briefs within the time required by the rules, there is nothing to do but to dismiss the proceeding in error. It will be so ordered.
Beard, C. J., and Scott, J., concur.