Court Opinion

ID: 9677301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:48:52.264649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:55.149427
License: Public Domain

White, C. J.,
dissenting.
The statute, section 29-2306, R. R. S. 1943, sets out the requirements for jurisdiction of a criminal case in *696this court. A notice of appeal and the filing of a docket fee or an affidavit of poverty in lieu thereof are required. These requirements were not complied with. Nobody suggests that this statute setting out the requirements of an appeal is unconstitutional or unreasonable in any respect. It is true that this defendant was an indigent but the statute on appeal does not require the payment of any money in order to docket an appeal. All he needed to do was file a poverty affidavit and a notice of appeal. The defendant was entitled to the same rights as any other citizen, neither more nor less. We see no reason why the defendant should not be required to comply with the statute the same as any other defendant desiring to take an appeal.
Under the majority holding, the defendant entirely disregarded the jurisdictional time limit for appeal, waited for an indefinite period of time, and then had an appeal granted based upon a claim that he desired to appeal with nothing in the record to substantiate such a claim. An indigent defendant has a right to counsel in the original trial, right to counsel on appeal, and a right to appeal without the payment of any fees or the costs or expenses of counsel. But it is not unreasonable to require a defendant to comply with the law applicable to every other citizen as to the procedural steps to be taken to perfect an appeal. Of course, the defendant had a constitutional and statutory right to counsel on appeal. The record shows that the court granted his request for counsel when he applied for it. He knew about his right to appeal and his right to a lawyer. He neither requested the court to appoint a lawyer at the proper time nor did he comply with the jurisdictional requirements on appeal.
Unless we are going to grant automatic appeals in all criminal cases there are certain minimal and simple statutory requirements that must be made by anyone desiring to take an appeal in a criminal case. These were *697not met in this case and therefore the appeal should not have been granted.
Carter, J., joins in this dissent.