Court Opinion

ID: 9793193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:44:20.506847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:51.832998
License: Public Domain

Gunderson, J.,
concurring:
Although I concur in the result, I respectfully submit the majority opinion omits to take into account that the procedure followed by appellant has heretofore been recognized as valid.
In the past, this court has consistently deemed oral, orders denying habeas petitions to be final and appealable. No written order has been required for finality. No written notice of entry of judgment has been required, in order to start appeal time running. This court has dismissed numerous habeas appeals, for not filing notice of appeal within fifteen days after oral denial.
It therefore seems incorrect to say, as set forth above: “In this case it is necessary for us to decide the narrow issue of the effect of a premature notice of appeal in a post-conviction habeas corpus case.” Under our practice, notice of appeal was not “premature.” If indeed such notice was “premature,” we will now have our work cut out for us, going back to find and to reinstate all the appeals heretofore dismissed for failure to appeal from oral orders of denial.