People v. Scott
221 Cal. App. 4th 525
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Anthony Scott was initially charged by information with second-degree robbery (a felony) and several misdemeanors; the felony was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence before trial.
- On the first day of trial the prosecutor filed a first amended misdemeanor complaint charging only petty theft, battery, and disturbing the peace; Scott was tried in a misdemeanor department and convicted of those misdemeanors.
- Scott filed a misdemeanor notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal (Form CR-132); the Attorney General argued appellate jurisdiction lay with the superior court appellate division.
- The Court of Appeal initially transferred the matter to the Santa Clara County Superior Court Appellate Division; the California Supreme Court granted review of that transfer and returned the matter to the Court of Appeal for further consideration.
- The central legal questions were whether appellate jurisdiction for the appeal lay in the Court of Appeal (because a felony had been charged earlier) or in the superior court appellate division (because the operative pleading at trial charged only misdemeanors), and whether the amended misdemeanor complaint was barred as the same offense under Penal Code § 1387.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate jurisdiction is vested in the Court of Appeal or the superior court appellate division | AG: jurisdiction lies with appellate division because the operative charges at trial were misdemeanors | Scott: original felony information should control; amended misdemeanor complaint was a formality and did not change the case’s essential nature | Held: appellate jurisdiction is in the superior court appellate division because the effective pleading at trial charged only misdemeanors after the felony was dismissed |
| Whether the amended misdemeanor complaint was barred as the "same offense" under § 1387 after dismissal of the prior information | AG: misdemeanor prosecution was not the same offense so § 1387 does not bar it | Scott: the misdemeanor complaint prosecuted the same theft conduct as the original grand theft information, so it was barred | Held: § 1387 does not bar the misdemeanor prosecution because petty theft lacks the grand-theft element (value over $950) and is a lesser included offense, not the identical offense |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Brown, 10 Cal.App.3d 169 (construing appellate venue where both felony and misdemeanor were charged but only misdemeanor conviction resulted)
- People v. Spreckels, 125 Cal.App.2d 507 (conviction of lesser included misdemeanor when charged with felony supports appellate review principles)
- People v. Douglas, 20 Cal.4th 85 (treatment of offenses filed as felonies but thereafter deemed misdemeanors under section 17(b))
- People v. Clark, 17 Cal.App.3d 890 (limits on superior court amending felony to misdemeanor and certification procedures)
- People v. Traylor, 46 Cal.4th 1205 (narrow construction of "same offense" for successive-prosecution bar under § 1387)
- Burris v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 1012 (analysis of when offenses have the same elements for § 1387 purposes)