Sansome v. Myers
Citations
- 80 Cal. 483
- 22 P. 212
- 1889 Cal. LEXIS 942
Syllabus
<p>Bill of Exceptions — Settlement—Mandamus.—Mandamus will lie to compel a superior judge to settle a bill of exceptions which he has improperly refused to settle; and he is not justified in refusing to settle it because it is inaccurate, untrue in many respects, meager, and partial, and a defective skeleton of the testimony and evidence. It is the duty of the judge to settle the bill of exceptions, though he may require it to be corrected, if incorrect, before signing it; but he has no right to refuse to settle it in the first instance because of its imperfections. The judge may require the party to make and present a proper statement, if it is incomplete.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- reiterating that “a defendant cannot resuscitate procedurally barred claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel simply by bootstrapping them to a claim of ineffectiveness of appellate counsel”
- reiterating that a remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on an ineffectiveness claim is not necessary where “we can determine from the record that the two-prong test for ineffectiveness cannot be met”
- reiterating that a remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on an ineffectiveness claim is not necessary where “we can determine from the record that the two-prong test for ineffectiveness cannot be met”
- reiterating that a remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on an ineffectiveness claim is not necessary where “we can determine from the record that the two-prong test for ineffectiveness cannot he met”
- reiterating that a remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on an ineffectiveness claim is not necessary where “we can determine from the record that the two prong test for ineffectiveness cannot be met”
- giving of improper jury charge on reliability of eyewitness testimony was harmless given that eyewitness identification “did not play a 13 significant role in the State’s case”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Beatty, McFarland, Works
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.