The opinion
BRETT, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the foregoing opinion, but am constrained to add that each such case must stand on its own facts and circumstances.
Trial courts should keep in mind that that “the State will neither bolt the door to equal justice nor support a wasteful abuse of the appellate process,” Griffin v. People of State of Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 , 76 S.Ct. 585, 593 , 100 L.Ed. 891 . But “the right of appeal may be accorded by the state to the accused upon such terms as in its wisdom may be deemed proper.” McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684, 687, 688 , 14 S.Ct. 913, 915 , 38 L.Ed. 867, 868 .
It appears herein that the petitioner did not comply with the requirements enacted by the legislature for perfecting an appeal. Nevertheless, both the trial court and prison officials should be cooperative on.the matter of perfecting appeals so as to avoid the charge of denial of equal pro *832 tection of the law. Dowd v. United States, 340 U.S. 206 -210, 71 S.Ct. 262 , 95 L.Ed. 215 .
Trial courts should never regard the right of an accused to appeal with neglect or indifference, and prison officials should never consider them arbitrarily. Certainly neither should ever become active participants in the denial of the- right to appeal, and thus as implements in denial of due process thwart the ends of justice.