Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
71 California opinions name it 2 courts 1957–2026 35 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Benoitgreen2 sentences2023(People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728 .) “In the event the Attorney General files an informal response, petitioner is granted leave to file a reply on or before 15 days after the informal response is filed.” In accordance with our order filed on May 25, 2023, the Attorney General filed a response conceding that petitioner’s allegations appear sufficient to make a prima facie showing for relief under the constructive filing doctrine set forth in In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72 . 2021In In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72 (Benoit), for example, this court held the so-called constructive filing doctrine offered a form of relief from default to prisoners whose attorneys failed to file timely notices of appeal from their criminal convictions. | 7 | 44 |
People v. Slobodiongreen2 sentences2009A. The Constructive Filing Doctrine The California Supreme Court first enunciated the doctrine of constructive filing in People v. Slobodion (1947) 30 Cal.2d 362 [ 181 P.2d 868 ], in which prison employees negligently delayed mailing a prisoner’s notice of appeal until after the expiration of the time period prescribed for filing a notice of appeal. 2009A. The Constructive Filing Doctrine The California Supreme Court first enunciated the doctrine of constructive filing in People v. Slobodion (1947) 30 Cal.2d 362 [ 181 P.2d 868 ], in which prison employees negligently delayed mailing a prisoner’s notice of appeal until after the expiration of the time period prescribed for filing a notice of appeal. | 3 | 12 |
In Re Chavezgreen2 sentences2021(People v. Lyons (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1361 .) To show the constructive filing doctrine should apply, as relevant here, an incarcerated criminal appellant must show he “ ‘has made arrangements with his attorney for the filing of a timely appeal and has displayed diligent but futile efforts in seeking to insure that the attorney has carried out his responsibility.’ ” (In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 657 ; People v. Lyons, at p. 1361.) This showing must be made by a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus (People v. Lyons, at p. 1362) or noticed motion (People v. Zarazua (2009) 2009“Unless the notice [of appeal] is actually or constructively filed within the appropriate filing period, an appellate court is without jurisdiction to determine the merits of the appeal and must dismiss the appeal.” (In re Jordan (1992) 4 Cal.4th 116, 121 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 878 , 840 P.2d 983 ]; see also People v. Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 1094-1095.) Our Supreme Court originally enunciated the doctrine of constructive filing in People v. Slobodion (1947) 30 Cal.2d 362, 366-367 [ 181 P.2d 868 ], where it “held that because the defendant delivered a notice of appeal to state prison employe | 3 | 9 |
In Re AMgreen2 sentences1992No. As Father recognizes, one reported case squarely addresses the above issue after the 1987 amendment to rule 39, which we discuss below, and holds that the doctrine of constructive filing does not apply in this situation. [3] ( In re A.M. (1989) 216 Cal. App.3d 319 [ 264 Cal. Rptr. 666 ].) However, he argues both that In re A.M. was wrongly decided, and that, even if it is correct, it need not and should not be applied to the facts of this case. 1992No. As Father recognizes, one reported case squarely addresses the above issue after the 1987 amendment to rule 39, which we discuss below, and holds that the doctrine of constructive filing does not apply in this situation. [3] ( In re A.M. (1989) 216 Cal. App.3d 319 [ 264 Cal. Rptr. 666 ].) However, he argues both that In re A.M. was wrongly decided, and that, even if it is correct, it need not and should not be applied to the facts of this case. | 3 | 4 |
In Re Jordangreen2 sentences2009(In re Jordan (1992) 4 Cal.4th 116, 121 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 878 , 840 P.2d 983 ] [“Unless the notice [of appeal] is actually or constructively filed within the appropriate filing period, an appellate court is without jurisdiction to determine the merits of the appeal and must dismiss the appeal.”]; Estate of Hanley (1943) 23 Cal.2d 120, 122-124 [ 142 P.2d 423 ].) The constructive filing doctrine is relevant to postjudgment writ petitions under section 1405, subdivision (j) precisely because the time deadline for filing the petition is jurisdictional. 2009(In re Jordan (1992) 4 Cal.4th 116, 121 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 878 , 840 P.2d 983 ] [“Unless the notice [of appeal] is actually or constructively filed within the appropriate filing period, an appellate court is without jurisdiction to determine the merits of the appeal and must dismiss the appeal.”]; Estate of Hanley (1943) 23 Cal.2d 120, 122-124 [ 142 P.2d 423 ].) The constructive filing doctrine is relevant to postjudgment writ petitions under section 1405, subdivision (j) precisely because the time deadline for filing the petition is jurisdictional. | 3 | 4 |
People v. Zarazuagreen2 sentences2024(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c) [“A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.”]; People v. Zarazua (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1065 [“[T]he People are forewarned that their future failure to file an opposition to a motion for constructive filing of an appeal 5 may be deemed to be their consent to the granting of the motion. ([Cal. Rules of Court, r]ule 8.54(c).)”].) Even if not forfeited, we disagree that Hall failed to establish he was entitled to relief under the constructive filing doctrine. 2021(See, e.g., People v. Zarazua (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1062 (Zarazua).) As to M.B.’s first point, we see no reason to extend the constructive filing doctrine to this context. | 2 | 4 |
People v. Romerogreen2 sentences2025(People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 740, fn. 7 .) In addition to the Attorney General’s nonopposition, petitioner demonstrates to this court’s satisfaction that application of the constructive filing doctrine is proper. 2025(People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 740, fn. 7 .) In addition to the Attorney General’s nonopposition, petitioner demonstrates to this court’s satisfaction that his forthcoming notice of appeal should be deemed timely filed under the constructive filing doctrine. | 2 | 3 |
In Re Andersongreen2 sentences2024Rather, he made this request for the first time in his opening brief. 7 a continuing failure to act after the disability which justified the initial failure has been removed.” (In re Anderson (1971) 6 Cal.3d 288, 293 .) Richards did not pursue his appellate remedy with the diligence demanded by the constructive filing doctrine. 2022“Excuse once established cannot be deemed a palliative for a continuing failure to act after the disability which justified the initial failure has been removed.” (In re Anderson (1971) 6 Cal.3d 288, 293 (Anderson).) Harper thus did not pursue his appellate remedy with the diligence demanded by the constructive filing doctrine. | 2 | 3 |
Silverbrand v. County of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences2014As explained by our Supreme Court: “Subsequent to Slobodion, we applied the prison-delivery rule to similar factual situations in which it appeared that the conduct of prison authorities, negligent or otherwise, had played a significant role in delaying transmittal of the prisoner’s notice of appeal. [Citations.] We additionally applied the constructive filing doctrine to situations in which the prisoner, although failing to file a notice within the . . . filing period, had relied upon statements or conduct of prison authorities that lulled the prisoner into a false sense of security. [Citatio 2014As explained by our Supreme Court: “Subsequent to Slobodion, we applied the prison-delivery rule to similar factual situations in which it appeared that the conduct of prison authorities, negligent or otherwise, had played a significant role in delaying transmittal of the prisoner’s notice of appeal. [Citations.] We additionally applied the constructive filing doctrine to situations in which the prisoner, although failing to file a notice within the . . . filing period, had relied upon statements or conduct of prison authorities that lulled the prisoner into a false sense of security. [Citatio | 2 | 3 |
Humboldt County Social Services Agency v. Charles H.green2 sentences2020(See, e.g., In re Z.S., supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at p. 769 .) “ ‘Numerous cases . . . have determined that the special need for finality in parental termination cases and the danger of imperiling adoption proceedings prevails over the policy considerations in favor of constructive filing.’ ” (Ibid., quoting In re Alyssa H. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1254 ; In re A. M. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 319, 322 [“While we recognize the importance of a natural mother or father’s parental rights [citations], we deem the special need for finality in [such] cases . . . of paramount importance. 2020(See, e.g., In re Z.S., supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at p. 769 .) “ ‘Numerous cases . . . have determined that the special need for finality in parental termination cases and the danger of imperiling adoption proceedings prevails over the policy considerations in favor of constructive filing.’ ” (Ibid., quoting In re Alyssa H. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1254 ; In re A. M. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 319, 322 [“While we recognize the importance of a natural mother or father’s parental rights [citations], we deem the special need for finality in [such] cases . . . of paramount importance. | 1 | 5 |
People v. Aguilargreen2 sentences2007Therefore, the court concluded: "It is evident that none of the criteria for application of the principle of constructive filing are present in defendant's case, and accordingly his statement of reasonable grounds for appeal may not be deemed constructively filed pursuant to Benoit We expressly decline to extend the holding of that case to situations in which an attorney not only does not agree to prepare or file a statement of reasonable grounds for appeal, but also does not agree to represent the defendant." ( Ibid,; see also People v. Aguilar (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 111, 116 , 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 2007Therefore, the court concluded: "It is evident that none of the criteria for application of the principle of constructive filing are present in defendant's case, and accordingly his statement of reasonable grounds for appeal may not be deemed constructively filed pursuant to Benoit We expressly decline to extend the holding of that case to situations in which an attorney not only does not agree to prepare or file a statement of reasonable grounds for appeal, but also does not agree to represent the defendant." ( Ibid,; see also People v. Aguilar (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 111, 116 , 4 Cal.Rptr.3d | 1 | 4 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Jonathan A.green2 sentences2021Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51, 56 ; In re Z.S. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 754, 768-769 (Z.S.).) Moreover, as Father also concedes, the constructive filing doctrine is generally not available in juvenile dependency matters, even when the failure to timely file the notice of appeal was the result of an error by trial counsel.4 (See Z.S., at p. 769; In re Ricky H. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 552, 559-560 ; In re Issac J. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 525, 531-534 .) Here, however, Mother did file a timely notice of appeal and raises the same singular issue as Father. 2020(See, e.g., In re Z.S., supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at p. 769 .) “ ‘Numerous cases . . . have determined that the special need for finality in parental termination cases and the danger of imperiling adoption proceedings prevails over the policy considerations in favor of constructive filing.’ ” (Ibid., quoting In re Alyssa H. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1254 ; In re A. M. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 319, 322 [“While we recognize the importance of a natural mother or father’s parental rights [citations], we deem the special need for finality in [such] cases . . . of paramount importance. | 1 | 4 |
In Re Gonsalvesgreen2 sentences2009(In re Gonsalves (1957) 48 Cal.2d 638, 645-646 [ 311 P.2d 483 ] (Gonsalves); see also People v. Frye (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 101, 102-103 [ 255 P.2d 105 ].) We additionally applied the constructive-filing doctrine to situations in which the prisoner, although failing to file a notice within the then applicable 10-day filing period, had relied upon statements or conduct of prison authorities that lulled the prisoner into a false sense of security. 2009(In re Gonsalves (1957) 48 Cal.2d 638, 645-646 [ 311 P.2d 483 ] (Gonsalves); see also People v. Frye (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 101, 102-103 [ 255 P.2d 105 ].) We additionally applied the constructive-filing doctrine to situations in which the prisoner, although failing to file a notice within the then applicable 10-day filing period, had relied upon statements or conduct of prison authorities that lulled the prisoner into a false sense of security. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Serranogreen2 sentences1992(Historical Note, op. cit. supra; see also People v. Serrano (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 331, 333 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 30 ].) 5 In In re Benoit, supra, 10 Cal.3d 72 , we were faced with the question whether the 1972 amendment to rule 31(a) had abrogated the constructive filing doctrine. 1992(Historical Note, op. cit. supra; see also People v. Serrano (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 331, 333 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 30 ].) 5 In In re Benoit, supra, 10 Cal.3d 72 , we were faced with the question whether the 1972 amendment to rule 31(a) had abrogated the constructive filing doctrine. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Miltongreen2 sentences1992(Id. at pp. 84-89; see also People v. Lepe, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at p. 1349, fn. 2 [relying upon Benoit to uphold a notice of appeal “signed” (and presumably delivered to prison authorities) eight days prior to expiration of the sixty-day filing period and received by the court clerk two days late, without discussing the factual basis for the delay]; People v. Wychocki, supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 1065 [relying upon People v. Milton, supra, 270 Cal.App.2d 408, 410, fn. 1 , to uphold a notice of appeal addressed to the defendant’s trial attorney, delivered to the prison custodian five days pri 1992(Id. at pp. 84-89; see also People v. Lepe, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at p. 1349, fn. 2 [relying upon Benoit to uphold a notice of appeal “signed” (and presumably delivered to prison authorities) eight days prior to expiration of the sixty-day filing period and received by the court clerk two days late, without discussing the factual basis for the delay]; People v. Wychocki, supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 1065 [relying upon People v. Milton, supra, 270 Cal.App.2d 408, 410, fn. 1 , to uphold a notice of appeal addressed to the defendant’s trial attorney, delivered to the prison custodian five days pri | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Popegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Berrymangreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Byrongreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Vallerygreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Fierrogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Groupgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Estate of Hanley v. Hanleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hollister Convalescent Hospital, Inc. v. Ricogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Eicher v. Advanced Business Integrators, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| City of Oakland v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Barragan v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Fryegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Callowaygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Acostagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Headgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Fredrick EHgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lepegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Wychockigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Castro v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Arlinegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Beasleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Department of Corrections v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Lyons
green
2 sentences2024(See In re Chavez, supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 658–659; In re Benoit, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 89 ; People v. Lyons, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 1362 ; People v. Aguilar, supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 116 .) Where, as here, “there is no showing of a convincing excuse for delay, the appeal must be dismissed.” (People v. Riser (1956) 47 Cal.2d 594, 596 .) We conclude that we have no jurisdiction to review the trial court’s March 8, 2023 or December 28, 2023 orders. 2021(People v. Lyons (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1361 .) To show the constructive filing doctrine should apply, as relevant here, an incarcerated criminal appellant must show he “ ‘has made arrangements with his attorney for the filing of a timely appeal and has displayed diligent but futile efforts in seeking to insure that the attorney has carried out his responsibility.’ ” (In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 657 ; People v. Lyons, at p. 1361.) This showing must be made by a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus (People v. Lyons, at p. 1362) or noticed motion (People v. Zarazua (2009) | 8 | 2009–2024 |
In Re Issac J.
green
2 sentences2021Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51, 56 ; In re Z.S. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 754, 768-769 (Z.S.).) Moreover, as Father also concedes, the constructive filing doctrine is generally not available in juvenile dependency matters, even when the failure to timely file the notice of appeal was the result of an error by trial counsel.4 (See Z.S., at p. 769; In re Ricky H. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 552, 559-560 ; In re Issac J. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 525, 531-534 .) Here, however, Mother did file a timely notice of appeal and raises the same singular issue as Father. 2020Adoption proceedings could be jeopardized if the finality of a judgment . . . were uncertain.”].) As one court explained, although the result of this approach “will be harsh in some cases . . . [w]e have considered the desirability of a more flexible standard, but can formulate no rules for the applicability of such a standard under which we could confidently predict that more good would be done than harm.” (In re Isaac J. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 525, 534 .) Father’s motion nevertheless requests that the constructive filing doctrine should apply here and permit him to “extend” his timely notice o | 4 | 2020–2021 |
People v. Riser
green
2 sentences2024(See In re Chavez, supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 658–659; In re Benoit, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 89 ; People v. Lyons, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 1362 ; People v. Aguilar, supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 116 .) Where, as here, “there is no showing of a convincing excuse for delay, the appeal must be dismissed.” (People v. Riser (1956) 47 Cal.2d 594, 596 .) We conclude that we have no jurisdiction to review the trial court’s March 8, 2023 or December 28, 2023 orders. 2022(See In re Chavez, supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 658-659; In re Benoit, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 89 ; Lyons, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 1362 ; Aguilar, supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 116 .) Where, as here, “there is no showing of a convincing excuse for delay, the appeal must be dismissed.” (People v. Riser (1956) 47 Cal.2d 594, 596 .) Harper nevertheless urges us to retain the appeal by relying on “California’s public policy in favor of hearing appeals on their merits and not depriving a party of his or her right to appeal because of technical 10 noncompliance.” He contends that policy “is especiall | 3 | 2022–2024 |
People v. Griggs
green
2 sentences2021Latchison explained he was “still” waiting to get information from his counsel, who had promised to “take care of” things, and he was filing a notice of appeal “just in case.” Latchison stated that after his counsel had made “ ‘conflicting’ remarks” about his case, he was told on March 26 that his petition was denied, but he never received “a copy.” Latchison was also told that his counsel would take care of his appeal, but he never received “confirmation.” In November 2019, Latchison’s appointed appellate counsel filed a motion for an order deeming this appeal timely under People v. Griggs (1 2016The fact that the superior court clerk marked the letter “received” and returned it to petitioner does not negate the application of the doctrine of constructive filing. 2 (People v. Griggs, supra, 67 Cal.2d 314 ; United Farm Workers of America v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 912 .) Pursuant to the Attorney General’s letter and the above analysis, this court concludes that petitioner’s letter to the Clerk of the Kings County Superior Court, received on July 24, 2015, constitutes a constructive filing entitling him to a belated appeal. | 2 | 2016–2021 |
Franks v. Delaware
green
1 sentence2025DISCUSSION A. Search Warrant Under Franks, supra, 438 U.S. at pages 155–156, a court must hold an evidentiary hearing (Franks hearing) if a defendant makes a “substantial preliminary showing” that an affiant, either deliberately or with reckless disregard for the truth, made false statements in a search warrant affidavit that were necessary for a finding of probable cause. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Olgin
green
2 sentences2024(See People v. Olgin (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 286 , 287–289 (Olgin).) In Olgin, the court used the constructive filing doctrine to accept a late- filed notice of appeal when the appellant did not receive notice of the court’s ruling until it was too late but filed the appeal immediately upon receiving notice. ( Olgin, supra, 137 Cal.App.2d at pp. 287–289.) There, the defendant attached a notice of appeal to his petition for writ of error coram nobis and requested the clerk file the notice of appeal if his petition was denied. 2024(See People v. Olgin (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 286 , 287–289 (Olgin).) In Olgin, the court used the constructive filing doctrine to accept a late- filed notice of appeal when the appellant did not receive notice of the court’s ruling until it was too late but filed the appeal immediately upon receiving notice. ( Olgin, supra, 137 Cal.App.2d at pp. 287–289.) There, the defendant attached a notice of appeal to his petition for writ of error coram nobis and requested the clerk file the notice of appeal if his petition was denied. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Dixon
green
1 sentence2023(In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756, 759 .) The court expresses no opinion as to the merits of those claims. 2 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Delgadillo
green
1 sentence2023Thereafter, appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), 2 Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 to section 1172.6. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Roe v. Flores-Ortega
green
1 sentence2022OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on April 28, 2022, be modified as follows: On page 12, at the end of the last sentence of the last paragraph, add the following as footnote 3: In a petition for rehearing, Harper contends we failed to address the following claim in his motion for constructive filing of a notice of appeal: “Whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a timely notice of appeal, and if so, whether the doctrine of constructive filing applies under Roe v. Flores-Ortega (2000) 528 U.S. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re Ricky H.
green
1 sentence2021Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51, 56 ; In re Z.S. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 754, 768-769 (Z.S.).) Moreover, as Father also concedes, the constructive filing doctrine is generally not available in juvenile dependency matters, even when the failure to timely file the notice of appeal was the result of an error by trial counsel.4 (See Z.S., at p. 769; In re Ricky H. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 552, 559-560 ; In re Issac J. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 525, 531-534 .) Here, however, Mother did file a timely notice of appeal and raises the same singular issue as Father. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Antilia
green
2 sentences2021(In re Antilia (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 622 , 630–631.) The “doctrine was developed to ‘alleviate the harshness’ of … [an otherwise unforgiving] jurisdictional rule in compelling circumstances.” (Antilia, at p. 631.) The People argue that the constructive filing doctrine is inapplicable here because no compelling or unusual circumstances require its application.5 Here, the People argue, the fault for defendant’s failure to file a petition for writ of mandate lies only with defendant. 2021(In re Antilia (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 622 , 630–631.) The “doctrine was developed to ‘alleviate the harshness’ of … [an otherwise unforgiving] jurisdictional rule in compelling circumstances.” (Antilia, at p. 631.) The People argue that the constructive filing doctrine is inapplicable here because no compelling or unusual circumstances require its application.5 Here, the People argue, the fault for defendant’s failure to file a petition for writ of mandate lies only with defendant. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Van Beurden Insurance Services v. Customized Worldwide Weather Insurance Agency
green
1 sentence2021Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51, 56 ; In re Z.S. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 754, 768-769 (Z.S.).) Moreover, as Father also concedes, the constructive filing doctrine is generally not available in juvenile dependency matters, even when the failure to timely file the notice of appeal was the result of an error by trial counsel.4 (See Z.S., at p. 769; In re Ricky H. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 552, 559-560 ; In re Issac J. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 525, 531-534 .) Here, however, Mother did file a timely notice of appeal and raises the same singular issue as Father. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Olson v. Cory
green
1 sentence2021He did not fall victim to an attorney who misled him regarding the sufficiency of a notice of appeal to preserve his rights under section 1405 (Antilia, at pp. 631–632), there was not a lack of clarity regarding nonappealability of an order pursuant to section 1405 (Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390 , 400–401), and no institutional hurdle or malfeasance by prison personnel prevented defendant from filing an appropriate petition (People v. Slobodion (1947) 30 Cal.2d 362, 366 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Harvey
green
1 sentence2021Defendant’s motions to have his fees converted into days of imprisonment and his request to have his fines and fees stayed were denied. 2 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 . 2 Defendant was granted permission to file a late notice of appeal under the constructive filing doctrine and also appealed the denial of his motion to stay his fines and fees resulting in the two appellate cases at issue in this appeal, which have been consolidated for all purposes. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Wende
green
2 sentences2016Defendant did not secure a certificate of probable cause. 3 DISCUSSION Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 .) Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. 2016Defendant did not secure a certificate of probable cause. 3 DISCUSSION Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 .) Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| United Farm Workers of America v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| McDonald's Corp. v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF MENDOCINO COUNTY green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. A.C. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Casillas green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Wise green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Mauldin green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Spencer green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Flores green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Dailey green | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| In Re Byrnes green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.