disentitlement doctrine in California

2025The disentitlement doctrine is based on the principle that “ ‘[a] party to an action cannot, with right or reason, ask the aid and assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in an attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of this state.’ ” (Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments, Inc. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1230 , quoting MacPherson v. MacPherson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 271, 277 .) Accordingly, “[a]n appellate court has the inherent power, under the ‘disentitlement doctrine,’ to dismiss an appeal by a party that refuses to comply with a lower court order.” (S

2025Based on her conduct, we are confident “ ‘her attitude will be the same toward any judgment or order made by this court in disposing of her appeal.’ ” (MacPherson, supra, 13 Cal.2d at p. 278 .) As one court has stated, the “need to vindicate the integrity of the judicial system has been considered, under some circumstances, so significant that the disentitlement doctrine has been imposed on a nonfugitive defendant who has signaled by [her] conduct that [s]he will only accept a decision in [her] favor.” (Polanski v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 507, 532 .) Under these circumstances, we

2026“Under the disentitlement doctrine, a reviewing court has inherent power to dismiss an appeal when the appealing party has refused to comply with the orders of the trial court. [Citation.] ‘ “Appellate disentitlement ‘is not a jurisdictional doctrine, but a discretionary tool that may be applied when the balance of the equitable concerns make it a proper sanction.’ ” ’ ” (Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. v. ScripsAmerica, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 259, 265 .) “The disentitlement doctrine ‘is particularly likely to be invoked where the appeal arises out of the very order (or orders) the party has di

2025(See In re Marriage of Hearn (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 380 , 389 [declining to dismiss where the appellant did not “willfully obstruct[] or fail[] to comply with the trial court orders at issue in this appeal”]; cf. Stoltenberg, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 1234 [dismissing where the appellant “repeatedly . . . frustrated the enforcement of the California judgment being appealed”].) We therefore decline Robles’s invitation to invoke the disentitlement doctrine due to conduct in different, even if related, cases.

2026“Under the disentitlement doctrine, a reviewing court has inherent power to dismiss an appeal when the appealing party has refused to comply with the orders of the trial court.” (Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. v. ScripsAmerica, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 259, 265 , italics added.) “In dependency cases, the doctrine has been applied only in cases of the most egregious conduct by the appellant, which 6 frustrates the purpose of dependency law and makes it impossible to protect the child or act in the child’s best interests.” (In re E.M. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 467, 474 , italics added.) Mother is the

2026On June 14, arguing that USD had not yet served notice of entry of that order, plaintiff asked the court to delay entering judgment for 60 days so 11 Accordingly, we need not reach USD’s argument that we should affirm based on the disentitlement doctrine, a legal principle that permits a reviewing court to dismiss an appeal “when the appealing party has refused to comply with orders of the trial court.” (Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. v. ScripsAmerica, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 259, 265 .) 23 that she could timely file a motion for reconsideration.

2025Therefore, we conclude the equitable considerations relevant to the disentitlement doctrine favor dismissal of this appeal.” (Gwartz v. Weilert (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 750, 761 .) C.

2023It is an 6. exercise of a state court’s inherent power to use its processes to induce compliance’ ” with a presumptively valid order.’ [Citation.] Thus, the disentitlement doctrine prevents a party from seeking assistance from the court while that party is in ‘an attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of this state.’ ” (In re Marriage of Hofer (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 454, 459 (Hofer).) “The disentitlement doctrine has been applied to a wide range of cases .…” (Gwartz v. Weilert (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 750, 758 (Gwartz).) The most common type of case involves a party act

2025“The disentitlement doctrine enables an appellate court to stay or to dismiss the appeal of a party who has refused to obey the superior court’s legal orders.” (In re Marriage of Hofer (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 454, 459 (Hofer).) “‘Dismissal is not “‘a penalty imposed as a punishment for criminal contempt.

2025It is an exercise of a state court’s inherent power to use its processes to induce compliance’” with a presumptively valid order.’” (Ibid.) “Appellate disentitlement ‘is not a jurisdictional doctrine, but a discretionary tool that may be applied when the balance of the equitable concerns make it a proper sanction . . . .’” (In re E.M. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 467, 474 .) “‘No formal judgment of contempt is required; an appellate court “may dismiss an appeal where there has been willful disobedience or obstructive tactics. [Citation.]” [Citation.] The doctrine “is based upon fundamental equity an

2023As a general rule, “‘[a] party to an action cannot, with right or reason, ask the aid and assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in an attitude of 12 contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of this state.’” (In re Kamelia S. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1228 , citing MacPherson v. MacPherson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 271, 277 .) The disentitlement doctrine refers to a reviewing court’s “inherent power to dismiss an appeal by a party who has refused to comply with the orders of the trial court.” (People v. Puluc-Sique (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 894, 897 .) It “is not a juri

2021The disentitlement doctrine refers to a reviewing court’s “inherent power to dismiss an appeal by a party who has refused 4We granted respondent’s request for judicial notice of the court’s May 12, 2020 minute order and May 26, 2020 last minute information. 7 to comply with the orders of the trial court.” (People v. Puluc- Sique (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 894, 897 .) It “is not a jurisdictional doctrine, but a discretionary tool that may be applied when the balance of the equitable concerns make it a proper sanction.” (Ibid.) “‘The case for application of the doctrine is most evident where, as her

2023(Blumberg v. Minthorne (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1386 , 1390–1392 [appeal dismissed where appellant defied court orders to file an accounting and quitclaim property, missed court dates, and lacked candor in communications with court]; TMS, Inc. v. Aihara (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 377 [appeal dismissed for judgment debtors’ willful disobedience of court order to answer postjudgment interrogatories]; Alioto Fish Co. v. Alioto (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1669 , 1682– 10 1683, 1691 [appeal stayed where appellants persisted in willful defiance of trial court orders].) The Board argues that Sweeney’s repea

2023“It is well settled that this court has the inherent power to dismiss an appeal by any party who has refused to comply with orders of the trial court.” (TMS, Inc. v. Aihara (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 377, 379 .) The disentitlement doctrine is not limited to violation orders that a party has appealed.

2022It is an exercise of a state court’s inherent power to use its processes to induce compliance” ’ 15 with a presumptively valid order.” (Ibid., quoting Stone v. Bach (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 442, 446 .) Thus, the disentitlement doctrine prevents a party from seeking assistance from the court while that party is in “an attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of this state.” (MacPherson v. MacPherson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 271, 277 .) “The disentitlement doctrine ‘is particularly likely to be invoked where the appeal arises out of the very order (or orders) the party has disobeyed.

2022We also recognize that “the merits [of the appeal] are irrelevant to the application of the disentitlement doctrine.” (Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. v. ScripsAmerica, Inc., supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 266 , citing Stone v. Bach, supra, 80 Cal.App.3d at p. 448 .) However, we can neither overlook that the crux of these appeals is Michael’s claimed inability to pay the fee awards, nor conclude without 17 doubt that Michael’s failure to make the fee payments owed to Lotte was willful.

2023As a general rule, “‘[a] party to an action cannot, with right or reason, ask the aid and assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in an attitude of 12 contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of this state.’” (In re Kamelia S. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1228 , citing MacPherson v. MacPherson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 271, 277 .) The disentitlement doctrine refers to a reviewing court’s “inherent power to dismiss an appeal by a party who has refused to comply with the orders of the trial court.” (People v. Puluc-Sique (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 894, 897 .) It “is not a juri

2021The disentitlement doctrine refers to a reviewing court’s “inherent power to dismiss an appeal by a party who has refused 4We granted respondent’s request for judicial notice of the court’s May 12, 2020 minute order and May 26, 2020 last minute information. 7 to comply with the orders of the trial court.” (People v. Puluc- Sique (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 894, 897 .) It “is not a jurisdictional doctrine, but a discretionary tool that may be applied when the balance of the equitable concerns make it a proper sanction.” (Ibid.) “‘The case for application of the doctrine is most evident where, as her

2024(E.g., Adoption of Jacob C. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 617, 623 [trial court barred mother from participating, through counsel, in hearing on petition to terminate her parental rights as to one child because she absconded with a second child and remained in hiding]; In re Marriage of Cohen (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 574 , 583 [trial court dismissed request for order to reduce spousal support payments for intentional failure to comply with support orders].) We review the juvenile court’s application of the disentitlement doctrine for abuse of discretion.

2021The disentitlement doctrine refers to a reviewing court’s “inherent power to dismiss an appeal by a party who has refused 4We granted respondent’s request for judicial notice of the court’s May 12, 2020 minute order and May 26, 2020 last minute information. 7 to comply with the orders of the trial court.” (People v. Puluc- Sique (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 894, 897 .) It “is not a jurisdictional doctrine, but a discretionary tool that may be applied when the balance of the equitable concerns make it a proper sanction.” (Ibid.) “‘The case for application of the doctrine is most evident where, as her

2016Although, contrary to the trial court’s understanding, case law instructs there did not have to be a contempt finding (Guardianship of Melissa W. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1299 [ 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 42 ] [court could apply doctrine without “formal judgment of contempt”]), the record makes clear the court would not have relied on the disentitlement doctrine, given that it terminated support as of January 1.

2016Although, contrary to the trial court’s understanding, case law instructs there did not have to be a contempt finding (Guardianship of Melissa W. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1299 [ 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 42 ] [court could apply doctrine without “formal judgment of contempt”]), the record makes clear the court would not have relied on the disentitlement doctrine, given that it terminated support as of January 1.

2026“Under the disentitlement doctrine, a reviewing court has inherent power to dismiss an appeal when the appealing party has refused to comply with the orders of the trial court.” (Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. v. ScripsAmerica, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 259, 265 , italics added.) “In dependency cases, the doctrine has been applied only in cases of the most egregious conduct by the appellant, which 6 frustrates the purpose of dependency law and makes it impossible to protect the child or act in the child’s best interests.” (In re E.M. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 467, 474 , italics added.) Mother is the

2025It is an exercise of a state court’s inherent power to use its processes to induce compliance’” with a presumptively valid order.’” (Ibid.) “Appellate disentitlement ‘is not a jurisdictional doctrine, but a discretionary tool that may be applied when the balance of the equitable concerns make it a proper sanction . . . .’” (In re E.M. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 467, 474 .) “‘No formal judgment of contempt is required; an appellate court “may dismiss an appeal where there has been willful disobedience or obstructive tactics. [Citation.]” [Citation.] The doctrine “is based upon fundamental equity an

2025It is an exercise of a state court’s inherent power to use its processes to induce compliance’” with a presumptively valid order.’” (Ibid.) “Appellate disentitlement ‘is not a jurisdictional doctrine, but a discretionary tool that may be applied when the balance of the equitable concerns make it a proper sanction . . . .’” (In re E.M. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 467, 474 .) “‘No formal judgment of contempt is required; an appellate court “may dismiss an appeal where there has been willful disobedience or obstructive tactics. [Citation.]” [Citation.] The doctrine “is based upon fundamental equity an

2023(Blumberg v. Minthorne (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1386 , 1390–1392 [appeal dismissed where appellant defied court orders to file an accounting and quitclaim property, missed court dates, and lacked candor in communications with court]; TMS, Inc. v. Aihara (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 377 [appeal dismissed for judgment debtors’ willful disobedience of court order to answer postjudgment interrogatories]; Alioto Fish Co. v. Alioto (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1669 , 1682– 10 1683, 1691 [appeal stayed where appellants persisted in willful defiance of trial court orders].) The Board argues that Sweeney’s repea

2025Based on her conduct, we are confident “ ‘her attitude will be the same toward any judgment or order made by this court in disposing of her appeal.’ ” (MacPherson, supra, 13 Cal.2d at p. 278 .) As one court has stated, the “need to vindicate the integrity of the judicial system has been considered, under some circumstances, so significant that the disentitlement doctrine has been imposed on a nonfugitive defendant who has signaled by [her] conduct that [s]he will only accept a decision in [her] favor.” (Polanski v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 507, 532 .) Under these circumstances, we

2023(Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 736 , 6 756.) Rather, “ ‘[a] trial court’s judgment and orders, all of them, are presumptively valid and must be obeyed and enforced. [Citation.] They are not to be frustrated by litigants except by legally provided methods.’ ” (Ibid.) The disentitlement doctrine “is not jurisdictional” but is instead “a discretionary tool that may be used to dismiss an appeal when the balance of the equitable concerns makes dismissal an appropriate sanction.” (Gwartz, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 757 .) It is based on the principle that “

2024(Cf. In re Baby Boy M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 588, 597-598 [“Under the circumstances we decline to expand the disentitlement doctrine to preclude the appeal of a recalcitrant parent, who, despite her initial lack of cooperation, has violated no court order and who presents a threshold question concerning the subject matter jurisdiction of the juvenile court”].) E.

2024(Cf. In re Baby Boy M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 588, 597-598 [“Under the circumstances we decline to expand the disentitlement doctrine to preclude the appeal of a recalcitrant parent, who, despite her initial lack of cooperation, has violated no court order and who presents a threshold question concerning the subject matter jurisdiction of the juvenile court”].) E.

2023(Blumberg v. Minthorne (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1386 , 1390–1392 [appeal dismissed where appellant defied court orders to file an accounting and quitclaim property, missed court dates, and lacked candor in communications with court]; TMS, Inc. v. Aihara (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 377 [appeal dismissed for judgment debtors’ willful disobedience of court order to answer postjudgment interrogatories]; Alioto Fish Co. v. Alioto (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1669 , 1682– 10 1683, 1691 [appeal stayed where appellants persisted in willful defiance of trial court orders].) The Board argues that Sweeney’s repea

2022Rather, “[t]he principle permitting [an appellate] court to . . . dismiss an appeal . . . ‘is based upon fundamental equity and is not to be frustrated by technicalities,’ such as the absence of a formal citation and judgment of contempt.” (Alioto Fish Co. v. Alioto (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1669, 1683 ; accord, Blumberg v. Minthorne (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1391 [appellant violated two postjudgment orders and appeal was dismissed]; Gwartz v. Weilert (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 750 , 757– 758 [“No formal judgment of contempt is required under the doctrine of disentitlement . . . .

2024(In re Baby Boy M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 588, 597, fn. 6 ; see also In re E.M. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 467, 477 [“Not every act of noncooperation in the trial court results in disentitlement”].) Our review is “‘deferential’” but “‘not empty.’” (People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 663 .) The juvenile court here relied on this court’s opinion in In re C.C. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 76 as authority for applying the disentitlement doctrine to bypass reunification services for mother.

2024(In re E.E., at p. 210.) In re E.E. also “question[ed]” the “appropriateness” of “broad” language in In re C.C., “staking out the position that where ‘the parent is not cooperative, a court has the inherent power under the disentitlement doctrine to bar that parent from seeking further assistance from the court, including the provision of reunification services.’” (In re E.E., at p. 211, 210, quoting In re C.C., supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 85 .) In re E.E. “doubt[ed] the discretionary doctrine creates a sweeping power to deny reunification services in view of the Legislature’s clear preferenc

2016The court further found, citing In re Claudia S. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 236 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 697 ] (Claudia S.), that the disentitlement doctrine barred Mother’s argument that the court could not move forward with the hearing.

2016The court further found, citing In re Claudia S. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 236 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 697 ] (Claudia S.), that the disentitlement doctrine barred Mother’s argument that the court could not move forward with the hearing.

2022(Say & Say v. Castellano (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 88, 94 .) “Dismissal is not ‘ “a penalty imposed as a punishment for criminal contempt.

2022(See, e.g., Gwartz, at pp. 755–758 [judgment debtors repeatedly violated trial court’s postjudgment order enjoining them from transferring or dissipating assets]; Say & Say v. Castellano (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 88, 94 [several meritless appeals taken from non-appealable orders for purpose of delay by adjudicated contemnor].) Plaintiffs argue for either “denial” or “outright dismissal” of the appeal because “it was Appellant’s discovery abuse that resulted in the default and default judgment.” Plaintiffs cite no authority, and we have found none, in which the disentitlement doctrine has been appl

2009Such an approach on appellant’s part to the present appeal is inherently offensive to the judicial process.” (Ibid.) The disentitlement doctrine “serves an important deterrent function” (Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States (1993) 507 U.S. 234, 242 [ 122 L.Ed.2d 581 , 113 S.Ct. 1199 ] (Ortega-Rodriguez)): it discourages the felony of escape and encourages voluntary surrenders.

2009Such an approach on appellant’s part to the present appeal is inherently offensive to the judicial process.” (Ibid.) The disentitlement doctrine “serves an important deterrent function” (Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States (1993) 507 U.S. 234, 242 [ 122 L.Ed.2d 581 , 113 S.Ct. 1199 ] (Ortega-Rodriguez)): it discourages the felony of escape and encourages voluntary surrenders.

2025(In re E.M. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 467, 474 ; In re Marriage of Hofer (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 454, 459 (Hofer).) Although most often applied where the appeal arises out of the very order (or orders) the party has disobeyed, the doctrine of disentitlement “is not limited to cases in which the appellant is in violation of the order from which he or she appeals, but rather may also apply to cases in which the appellant has violated orders other than the one from which the appeal has been taken.” (In re E.M., at p. 477, italics added; In re A.K. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 281, 286 .) Appellate disentit

2025Under the disentitlement doctrine, an appellate court has the inherent power “ ‘to dismiss an appeal by a party that refuses to comply with a lower court order.’ ” (In re Marriage of Cohen (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 574 , 580.) “ ‘Appellate disentitlement “is not a jurisdictional doctrine, but a discretionary tool that may be applied when the balance of the equitable concerns make it a proper sanction.” ’ ” (In re A.K. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 281, 285 .) Given the discretionary nature of this tool and considering our Supreme Court’s observation that “case law reflects a preference for the resolution

2015Under the disentitlement doctrine, “[a] reviewing court has inherent power to dismiss an appeal when the appealing party has refused to comply with the orders of the trial court. [Citation.]” (In re Z.K. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 51, 63 .) The doctrine 5 Code of Civil Procedure section 405.38 provides, “The court shall direct that the party prevailing on any motion under this chapter be awarded the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of making or opposing the motion unless the court finds that the other party acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of

2013Under the disentitlement doctrine, “[a] reviewing court has inherent power to dismiss an appeal when the appealing party has refused to comply with the orders of the trial court. [Citation.]” (In re Z.K. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 51, 63 .) The doctrine “extends to conduct that . . . frustrates the ability of another party to obtain information it needs to protect its own legal rights.” (In re C.C. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 76 , 85.) “Appellate disentitlement ‘is not a jurisdictional doctrine, but a discretionary tool that may be applied when the balance of the equitable concerns make it a proper san

2012(Id. at p. 448.) In Tobin v. Casaus (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 588 [ 275 P.2d 792 ], the court conditionally dismissed, pursuant to the disentitlement doctrine, an appeal from a money judgment because of appellant’s postjudgment refusal to appear at a judgment debtor’s examination and to surrender in response to an arrest warrant.

2012(Id. at p. 448.) In Tobin v. Casaus (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 588 [ 275 P.2d 792 ], the court conditionally dismissed, pursuant to the disentitlement doctrine, an appeal from a money judgment because of appellant’s postjudgment refusal to appear at a judgment debtor’s examination and to surrender in response to an arrest warrant.

2025(See, e.g., Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 736 , 757; United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142 , 166–167.) On review of the record, we found no evidence Rota had paid the $1,500 in sanctions the superior court imposed on her.

2023(See, e.g., Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians, supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at p. 757; United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142 , 166–167.) In arguing otherwise, Robertson claims he is not in violation of any court orders since respondents “offered to waive their rights to collect the sanctions and costs” and the mutual release deemed signed is “broad enough to cover releases of [respondents’] claims” for those charges.

2013Typically, the disentitlement doctrine is applied under circumstances in which the appellant is presently disobeying a court order, such as, for example, a parent challenging a custody order while absconding with the child (MacPherson v. MacPherson, supra, 13 Cal.2d at p. 277 ), or a criminal defendant appealing a conviction but fleeing and hiding from law enforcement (People v. Kubby (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 619, 621 ).

2009One, of course, is enforceability. “[S]o long as the party cannot be found, the judgment on review may be impossible to enforce.” *532 (Degen v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 820, 824 [ 135 L.Ed.2d 102 , 116 S.Ct. 1777 ] (Degen), superseded in the civil forfeiture context by 28 U.S.C. § 2466 ; see also Redinger, supra, 55 Cal. at p. 298 .) Another is a sense of unclean hands: the “abstract principle that a fugitive forfeits the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts to review a judgment that the fugitive flouts. [Citations.]” (People v. Kubby (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 619, 623 [ 118 Cal.Rp

2025(Menezes v. McDaniel (2019) 44 Cal.App.5th 340 , 346; Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments, Inc. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1225 , 1229–1230.) “A party to an action cannot, with right or reason, ask the aid and assistance of a court in hearing [her] demands while [s]he stands in an attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of this state.” (MacPherson v. MacPherson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 271, 277 .) “It is contrary to the principles of justice to permit one who has 11 flaunted the orders of the courts to seek judicial assistance.” (Estate of Scott (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 590, 594 .) “Th

1990It would be a farce to proceed in a criminal cause, unless the Court had control over the person charged, so that its judgment might be made effective.' ( People v. Redinger [1880] 55 Cal. 290, 298 .)" ( People v. Buffalo, supra, 49 Cal. App.3d at p. 839 .) No denial of the federal due process clause results from the dismissal of a fugitive's criminal appeal. ( Allen v. Georgia (1897) 166 U.S. 138 [ 41 L.Ed. 949 , 17 S.Ct. 525 ] [order of dismissal sustained after fugitive attempted to revive his appeal following recapture]; see Molinaro v. New Jersey (1970) 396 U.S. 365, 366 [ 24 L.Ed.2d 586,