Case Name: The People, Respondent, v. Carrillo, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1913-04-08
Citations: 19 P.R. 335
Docket Number: No. 591
Parties: The People, Respondent, v. Carrillo, Appellant.
Judges: Chief Justice Hernandez and Justices Wolf, del Toro and Aldrey concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 335–337

Head Matter:
The People, Respondent, v. Carrillo, Appellant.
Appeal from the District Court of Guayama.
No. 591.
Decided April 8, 1913.
Ckiminal Law — Appeal—Brief—Assignment of Errors. — After the transcript of the record has been filed in this court the first duty of the appellant is to file his brief with an assignment of errors. Omitting the brief is a vicious practice which should be condemned.
Id. — Notice op Appeal — Jurisdiction.—It is necessary to file a notice of appeal in the trial court in order that the appellate court may have jurisdiction to review the judgment appealed from.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Cay. Coll CucM for appellant.
Mr. Charles E. Foote, fiscal, for The People.

Opinion:
Mb. Justice MacLeaby
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a case in -which the defendant was convicted on November 18, 1912, of hog stealing. No brief was filed by the appellant but at the hearing counsel appeared and made an oral argument. The first thing the appellant should do after filing the transcript is to file a brief containing an assignment of errors in accordance with rules 42 and 43 of this court. Of course oral argument is always welcome but it loses half its effect unless based on a written brief. Omitting the brief is a vicious practice which we have repeatedly condemned. We do so again in hopes of impressing the bar with its importance.
There is a preliminary question in this case which affects the jurisdiction of this court. On looking through the transcript there is nowhere found any notice of appeal from the judgment rendered by the court below. It is true the counsel for appellant in the trial court filed a long motion excusing himself for the absence of the notice of appeal and asking permission to present his notice of appeal, which was granted on February 3, 1913. But appellant failed to comply with this permission and omitted to file the notice of appeal.
We have held more than once that it is necessary to file a notice of appeal to. the trial court in order to give jurisdiction to the appellate court to review the judgment rendered. The reason for this decision is given fully in the opinion of the court delivered by Mr. Justice Aldrey, on the 9th of last December, in the case of Antolino Lorenzo, and it is only necessary to refer thereto. On the next day in a case against the same party the same ruling was made and the former case approved.
For tlie lack of the notice of appeal this court has no jurisdiction and the appeal must he dismissed.
Appeal dismissed,
Chief Justice Hernandez and Justices Wolf, del Toro and Aldrey concurred.