JESUS ROBERT FELIX, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
HAROLD J. CARDWELL, WARDEN, ARIZONA STATE PRISON, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the notice of appeal was filed outside the mandatory time limits prescribed by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Felix was convicted of a crime, and his habeas corpus petition was denied by the District Court. He failed to file a timely notice of appeal or a moti…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fed. R. App. P. 26(b) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In 1972 an Arizona jury convicted Felix of the offense of depositing or exploding an explosive on, in, or near a populated building (Ariz. Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-922), and the court sentenced him to prison. He appealed unsuccessfully and then sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The District Court denied the writ.
On September 8, 1975, a judgment was filed and entered dismissing Felix’s petition. Thirty days thereafter, on October 8th, Felix had not filed a notice of appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a). On November 7th, thirty more days had elapsed, and even at that late date, Felix had filed neither the required notice, nor a motion to extend the time for filing such a notice, nor any other motion. In fact, he did not act until November 10, 1975, when he applied for a certificate of probable cause. This application was granted on November 25, 1975. Finally, on December 17, 1975, Felix filed a notice of appeal. We are obligated to raise the question of our court’s jurisdiction on our own motion.
In Alexander v. Sacha, 439 F. 2d 742 (9th Cir. 1971), this court established that neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals has any power to permit an appeal to proceed once the consecutive thirty-day periods specified in Rule 4(a), Fed.R.App.P., have elapsed without the appellant’s having filed a notice of appeal, a motion to extend the time for filing such a notice, or a motion tolling Rule 4(a). As we have said, Felix filed no motion or notice before November 8,1975, by which date the District Court had lost all power to permit the appeal. This court has no jurisdiction (Alexander v. Sacha, supra) and is specifically denied the authority to grant an extension on its own (Rules 2 and 26(b), Fed.R.App.P.).
The appeal is
DISMISSED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Habib Amir Abdallah ALI v. Lyles, 769 F.2d 204 (4th Cir. 1985)
Authorities Cited
- Alexander v. Sacha, 439 F.2d 742 (9th Cir. 1971)