Court Opinion

ID: 9421512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:58:38.764967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:30.846688
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Burton,
with whom Mr. Justice Clark concurs,
dissenting.
Petitioner was present in open court with his attorney at the time the court overruled his motion for a new trial. He thus had actual notice of the denial of his motion and was not entitled to rely upon an additional notice in writing from the clerk to the same effect. The colloquy quoted by the court took place later, “after calling other motions in other cases.” At that time this case “was again called by the Judge and the proceedings as indicated in the transcript of the official Court reporter took place.” Especially in the light of the time interval *82between the denial of the motion and the colloquy quoted in the opinion, I believe the Court of Appeals was justified in concluding that petitioner’s counsel should have understood that his motion had been denied on June 14.