People v. Morales
224 Cal. App. 4th 1587
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Morales was initially charged by complaint with felony possession of methamphetamine after police entered her motel room and discovered two small baggies (~0.5g total) during a warrantless encounter. Officers testified to facts supporting exigent-circumstances entry and seizure.
- At the preliminary hearing Morales was held to answer on the felony; the complaint was stipulated to be certified to superior court and an information was later filed. Pretrial suppression and section 995 motions were denied.
- Pursuant to a negotiated plea, Morales pleaded no contest to misdemeanor possession (Health & Saf. Code § 11377(a)); the court granted 3 years probation, ordered 2 days jail (with credit), fines and fees, and the minute order listed a stayed $140 probation-revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.44).
- Morales filed a Wende opening brief; the appellate division certified the case to the Court of Appeal because the matter had been charged as a felony. The Court of Appeal appointed counsel and reviewed the record independently.
- The Court (1) corrected the judgment to formally impose and stay the mandatory probation-revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.44), because the reporter’s transcript did not show oral imposition but the statute requires assessment when probation is granted; and (2) resolved appellate-jurisdiction dispute, holding the Court of Appeal (not the superior court appellate division) had jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which court has appellate jurisdiction: Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division? | Prosecutor: Rule 8.304’s "regardless of the outcome" test controls; because a felony complaint was certified/filed, jurisdiction lies in the Court of Appeal. | Morales: Jurisdiction should be determined by the practical charging posture; case became a misdemeanor matter when plea reduced the charge and was prosecuted as a misdemeanor. | Court of Appeal has jurisdiction here: felony was charged, defendant was held to answer, complaint/information was before superior court and not superseded by an amended misdemeanor pleading as in Scott. |
| Whether the minute order correctly reflected the court’s oral pronouncement regarding the probation-revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.44) | People: The minute order reflects court’s intent to impose and stay the §1202.44 fine. | Morales: Transcript did not show oral imposition; minutes cannot alter oral pronouncement. | Court corrects judgment to impose and stay $140 probation-revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.44) because statutory assessment is mandatory when probation imposed and transcript/minutes must be harmonized in favor of statutory requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wende, People v., 25 Cal.3d 436 (summary-review procedure for counsel who finds no arguable appellate issues)
- Scott, People v., 221 Cal.App.4th 525 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (where felony count was dismissed and an amended misdemeanor complaint filed, appellate-division jurisdiction held proper)
- Nickerson, People v., 128 Cal.App.4th 33 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (defendant not "charged" with a felony for appellate-jurisdiction purposes until information filed or complaint certified)
- Douglas, People v., 20 Cal.4th 85 (Cal. 1999) (amended pleading and effect on original charging document)
- Zackery, People v., 147 Cal.App.4th 380 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (oral pronouncement controls over minute order when discrepancy exists)