5 Cal. App. 5th 961
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Jan 22, 2014 CHP stopped Adam Lee Guerra for an expired registration; officer observed a temporary decal in the rear windshield that justified driving despite the expired tag.
- Guerra was arrested and charged with three misdemeanors: DUI (Veh. Code § 23152(a)), DUI per se (§ 23152(b)), and driving on a suspended license (§ 14601.5(a)).
- Guerra moved to suppress evidence under Penal Code § 1538.5; the superior court granted the motion and suppression order.
- The People appealed the suppression order to the appellate division under § 1538.5(j); the appellate division reversed in a minute order without explaining its reasons and issued no statement of reasons.
- The superior appellate division denied Guerra’s application to transfer; Guerra petitioned this Court of Appeal which granted transfer and framed issues including appealability and whether the appellate division must state reasons.
- The Court of Appeal held (1) the People had the statutory right to appeal the suppression order in a misdemeanor case under § 1538.5(j), and (2) Code Civ. Proc. § 77(d) requires appellate divisions to include a brief statement of reasons with their judgments; the case was remanded for compliance. The court did not reach the suppression merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the People could appeal the trial court’s suppression order | People: § 1538.5(j) permits either party to appeal suppression orders in misdemeanor cases | Guerra: appeal was unauthorized because case not dismissed and appellate division lacked jurisdiction | Court: Appeal authorized by § 1538.5(j); People’s appeal proper |
| Whether appellate division must provide reasons for its judgment | People: agreed statute requires a brief statement of reasons | Guerra: appellate division’s one-line reversal was insufficient under § 77(d) | Court: § 77(d) requires a brief statement of reasons; minute order insufficient |
| Whether Code Civ. Proc. § 77(d) conflicts with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.887(a) (no duty to write opinions) | People: statute governs and is harmonizable with rule 8.887(a) | Guerra: potential conflict between statutory explanation requirement and rule relieving appellate divisions of written opinions | Court: No conflict — "brief statement of reasons" is distinct from a full written opinion; rule 8.887(a) still allows but does not excuse the statutory minimal-explanation duty |
| Remedy for appellate division’s deficient order | People: remand for compliance with § 77(d) | Guerra: requested compliance and correction | Court: Remanded to appellate division to issue amended order with brief reasons; did not decide suppression merits |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Loper, 60 Cal.4th 1155 (statutory rule: right to appeal is statutory)
- People v. Laiwa, 34 Cal.3d 711 (recognition of right to appeal suppression rulings in misdemeanor context)
- People v. Superior Court (Abrahms), 55 Cal.App.3d 759 (procedurally distinguishable; discussed writs and appellate review)
- Macias v. Municipal Court, 49 Cal.App.3d 259 (explains appeal as remedy for suppression rulings in misdemeanors)
- People v. Kelly, 40 Cal.4th 106 (distinguishing written opinions required for appellate courts from summary dispositions)
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (describing elements of written opinions required in certain appeals)
- Johnson v. Williams, 133 S.Ct. 1088 (recognition of summary orders distinct from full written opinions)