Court Opinion

ID: 9940179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 17:16:34.535261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:39.887864
License: Public Domain

I respectfully dissent from the majority's conclusion that, "based on the unusual circumstances surrounding the dismissal of petitioner's appeal, the equities of this case lie in favor of granting petitioner's request for relief." (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 457.) Petitioner's request to reinstate his appeal was addressed to the sound discretion of the Court of Appeal. (Lundy v. Lakin (1949) 89 Cal.App.2d 849, 850
[202 P.2d 369], cited with approval in Mattz v. Superior Court (1988)46 Cal.3d 355, 361 [250 Cal.Rptr. 278, 758 P.2d 606]; O'ConnellGold Mines, Ltd. v. Baker (1943) 60 Cal.App.2d 777, 779
[141 P.2d 785].) Accordingly, the issue before us is not whether the "equities" of this case favor reinstatement of petitioner's appeal, but instead whether the Court of Appeal abused its discretion in denying petitioner's request for such relief. I conclude that the Court of Appeal, in reliance upon our decision in In re Martin (1962) 58 Cal.2d 133 [23 Cal.Rptr. 167,373 P.2d 103], properly exercised its discretion in denying petitioner's request.
In its rush to rescue petitioner from the perceived harshness of the denial of appellate review under the circumstances of this case, the majority — glossing over the reality that petitioner, by his own inaction over a lengthy period of time, relinquished his right of appeal — has created bad law as well as a conflict with our decision in In re Martin, supra, 58 Cal.2d 133. I have no doubt that today's decision will plague the Courts of Appeal in their efforts to exercise proper discretion in future cases, and ultimately will come back to haunt us in the form of petitions seeking our review of decisions in which the intermediate appellate court has had the temerity to weigh the equities against a delinquent appellant.
In In re Martin, supra, 58 Cal.2d 133, private counsel was retained to appeal the petitioner's criminal conviction. Counsel filed a notice of appeal but took no further action, other than to request an extension of time to file the appellant's opening brief, and the appeal subsequently was dismissed. While the appeal in that case was pending, and continuing after its dismissal, the petitioner made "a sincere effort to ascertain the status thereof," including making "repeated efforts to communicate with his attorney" and sending two letters to the Court of Appeal. (In re Martin, supra, 58 Cal.2d at p. 136.) After being informed of the dismissal, he again attempted to contact his attorney and wrote to the State Bar and the Court of Appeal. (Id. at pp. 136-137.) *Page 460 
This court held: "[T]he question here is not the misconduct, if any, on the part of the attorney, but rather whether petitioner had knowledge that his appeal was not being prosecuted and with that knowledge stood by without taking action to preserve it." (In re Martin, supra, 58 Cal.2d at p. 137.) The opinion inMartin later describes this issue as whether the petitioner in that case "himself was in any way responsible, either personally or acting through his attorney, for the delay which resulted in the default. . . ." (Id. at p. 141.) We determined that the petitioner was entitled to relief, noting that he "is innocent of any personal fault for the dismissal of his appeal" and "cannot be charged with consent to or even knowledge of the abandonment [of his appeal] in the instant circumstances." (Id. at p. 137.)
The present case differs from Martin in several significant respects. Unlike Martin, petitioner in the present case was aware of the exact status of his appeal at every stage. Because he filed the notice of appeal in propria persona, and his attorney failed to substitute himself as counsel, the Court of Appeal sent all notices directly to petitioner. On November 7, 1991, the Court of Appeal mailed to petitioner at Folsom State Prison a notice informing him that the record on appeal had been filed and that his opening brief was due within 40 days. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 37(a).) When no brief was filed, a notice was mailed to petitioner on December 27, 1991, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 17(a), informing him that the appeal would be dismissed in the event his opening brief was not filed within 30 days. (Id., rules 17(a), 17(c).) On January 29, 1992, the Court of Appeal mailed to petitioner a notice indicating that his appeal had been dismissed because no brief had been filed. The Court of Appeal also mailed to petitioner a copy of the remittitur that issued on April 3, 1992.
Petitioner, in his declaration in support of the present petition, admits having received "various notices from the court regarding [his] appeal. . . ." Apparently prompted by these notices, petitioner states he "attempted to call [his] attorneys but was never able to speak with anyone in the office." Petitioner acknowledges having been aware that his appeal was dismissed, and attempts to explain why he took no action, even when notified that his appeal had been dismissed: "[A]fter the appeal was dismissed I was extremely frustrated because my family had spent a great deal of money they didn't have and it seemed like it was going to go to waste. I did not feel I could ask them for more money to help me."
When petitioner received notice, mailed on December 27, 1991, that an opening brief had not been filed and the appeal would be dismissed unless a *Page 461 
brief was filed within 30 days, he certainly had cause for concern. When petitioner subsequently received a notice, mailed on January 29, 1992, that his appeal had been dismissed, it was incumbent upon him to take some action, such as contacting his attorneys, his family (who had hired his attorneys), or the Court of Appeal. But the only indication that he took any action is the vague reference in his declaration that he "attempted to call [his] attorneys but was never able to speak with anyone in the office." Petitioner does not state at what point he attempted to telephone his attorneys, how many attempts he made, or why he was unsuccessful in contacting his attorneys. The foregoing leads to the inescapable conclusion that, at the least, he was aware his appeal had been dismissed but, in contrast to the petitioner inIn re Martin, supra, 58 Cal.2d 133, took no significant action to remedy the situation.
Focusing upon the efforts of petitioner's niece to secure effective appellate representation for petitioner, the majority fails to acknowledge petitioner's personal responsibility to act diligently to protect his right of appeal. Initially, petitioner believed he was represented by counsel and, even after receiving notice that the appeal would be dismissed if no brief were filed, still might have believed (giving him the benefit of the doubt) that his attorneys would fulfill their responsibilities. But when petitioner received notice that his appeal had been dismissed, he no longer reasonably could believe that his attorneys were prosecuting the appeal. In fact, petitioner admits as much in his declaration. Still, he took no significant action. The present request to reinstate the appeal was made only after his niece, by happenstance, discovered the order of dismissal some 10 months after the appeal was dismissed, while going through a box of his personal effects sent from the prison when petitioner was transferred from Folsom State Prison to Pelican Bay State Prison.
An appellant's unreasonable delay following dismissal of an appeal constitutes a ground for denying reinstatement of the appeal. (See Ellenberger v. City of Oakland (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 828,836 [174 P.2d 461] [A motion to recall a remittitur "must be promptly made, and . . . unexplained delay is itself sufficient to deny the relief. [Citations.]"]; Gutelius v.General Electric Co. (1940) 39 Cal.App.2d 292, 294
[102 P.2d 1108].) Otherwise, an appellant could seek reinstatement years after an appeal was dismissed. In my view, the Court of Appeal did not abuse its discretion in finding that petitioner's delay of 10 months in seeking reinstatement of the appeal following the dismissal was unreasonable under the circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, I conclude that the Court of Appeal did not err in denying petitioner's request for reinstatement of his appeal, and I would *Page 462 
affirm the judgment of that court denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
 Baxter, J., concurred. *Page 463