People v. Lynall, 233 Cal. App. 4th 1102

In September–October 2014 Lynall was found in a wooded encampment; deputies discovered methamphetamine paraphernalia and a loaded syringe in his tent. He was a parolee at large with an active parole warrant.
The prosecutor filed a complaint charging felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Safety Code § 11377) and two misdemeanors; the parties stipulated the complaint would serve as the information after Lynall was held to answer.
At the preliminary hearing (Nov 4, 2014) Lynall was held to answer; the complaint was treated as an information, so he was charged with a felony in the superior court before Proposition 47 took effect.
Proposition 47 (effective Nov 5, 2014) reclassified many drug-possession offenses as misdemeanors; the parties negotiated a disposition reducing Lynall’s count 1 to a misdemeanor, dismissed other counts, and the court imposed a 24-month conditional sentence with Proposition 36 probation.
Lynall filed a notice of appeal on the misdemeanor form and the clerk initially assigned it to the appellate division of the superior court; the Court of Appeal raised the jurisdictional question and both parties agreed the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate jurisdiction lies in the Court of Appeal or the superior court appellate division when an offense was charged as a felony but later reduced to a misdemeanor under Prop 47	The People agreed the case is a felony case and the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction	Lynall agreed the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction (though he filed on a misdemeanor form)	Court of Appeal has jurisdiction because a felony was charged in the information (rule 8.304 and §691 govern)
Whether Proposition 47’s statement that a resentenced or redesignated felony "shall be considered a misdemeanor for all purposes" alters appellate-jurisdiction rules	The People argued Prop 47 does not alter existing appellate-jurisdiction rules	Lynall did not contend Prop 47 changed jurisdiction; procedural error in filing form noted	The court held Prop 47’s language does not retroactively change jurisdiction when a felony was charged; charging instrument controls jurisdiction

People v. Banks, 53 Cal.2d 370 (1959) (wobbler is felony for all purposes up to judgment; misdemeanor designation is not retroactive)
People v. Feyrer, 48 Cal.4th 426 (2010) (when a wobbler is convicted as a felony it remains a felony until reduced by the sentencing court)
People v. Morales, 224 Cal.App.4th 1587 (2014) (appellate jurisdiction analysis where charging instrument and post-election reclassification interact)
People v. Nickerson, 128 Cal.App.4th 33 (2005) (distinguishing appellate jurisdiction between felony and misdemeanor cases)
People v. Scott, 221 Cal.App.4th 525 (2013) (considered form used to initiate appeal in determining proper appellate forum)