69 Cal.App.5th 15
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background:
- Dajah Brown was cited for misdemeanor loitering with intent to commit prostitution and moved to suppress statements and evidence under Penal Code §1538.5.
- At the scheduled suppression hearing the prosecutor orally requested a continuance because the subpoenaed officer had been permitted to leave to interview a witness in an unrelated matter.
- The trial court denied the continuance for lack of good cause under §1050 and, because the People offered no evidence at the hearing, granted Brown’s suppression motion.
- The People moved for reconsideration relying on People v. Ferrer (First Dist. Ct. App.), arguing that a court may not deny a continuance when denial would foreseeably force dismissal; the trial court vacated its rulings, continued the suppression hearing, and ultimately denied suppression.
- Brown pleaded guilty, appealed; the appellate division affirmed as bound by Ferrer. This court granted transfer, rejected Ferrer’s rule, reversed the judgment, and ordered the trial court to reinstate its original orders denying the continuance and granting suppression.
Issues:
| Issue | People’s Argument | Brown’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may deny a prosecutor’s continuance request under §1050 even if denial is reasonably foreseeable to cause dismissal | Ferrer and People: courts cannot deny continuances where denial would foreseeably cause dismissal; §1050( l ) and §1050.5 foreclose dismissal for failure to meet good-cause notice requirements | Trial court may deny continuance for lack of good cause under §1050(e); Ferrer was wrongly decided | Court held trial courts may deny continuances for lack of good cause under §1050(e) even if denial may foreseeably result in dismissal (declined to follow Ferrer) |
| Whether §1050( l ) and §1050.5 bar dismissal of a case whenever the prosecution fails to show good cause for a continuance | People: statutory amendments and legislative history show dismissal is disallowed in these circumstances | Brown: §1050( l ) only makes §1050 directory (not mandate dismissal) and §1050.5 limits dismissal only for failures to comply with §1050(b) (written-notice rule) | Court held neither §1050( l ) nor §1050.5 removes a court’s broader authority to dismiss or otherwise manage cases; the statutes do not forbid denial of continuance that may cause dismissal |
| Appropriate remedy on appeal after court declines to follow Ferrer | People did not specify remedy; Ferrer-based vacatur justified reinstatement of proceedings | Brown sought reinstatement of original denial and suppression order and asked for dismissal | Court reversed and remanded: ordered trial court to reinstate denial of continuance and grant of suppression; declined to order dismissal, leaving further proceedings to the trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ferrer, 184 Cal.App.4th 873 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (held trial courts may not deny continuance when denial would foreseeably result in dismissal)
- People v. Ferguson, 218 Cal.App.3d 1173 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (trial court abused discretion in dismissing case when prosecutor unavailable for trial)
- People v. Henderson, 115 Cal.App.4th 922 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (applied Ferguson reasoning to preliminary hearings; treated dismissal as disfavored)
- People v. Rubaum, 110 Cal.App.3d 930 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) (construed §1050 as directory, not mandatory)
- People v. McGee, 19 Cal.3d 948 (Cal. 1977) (explains mandatory vs. directory statutory effect)