People v. LynallPeople v. Lynall
Counsel
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, and Catherine A. Rivlin, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Opinion
MÁRQUEZ, J.—In this case, as in the companion case of People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 [183 Cal.Rptr.3d 362] (Rivera), we review the effect, if any, of recently enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, on appellate jurisdiction.
In Rivera, after the court imposed a felony sentence, the defendant petitioned to have his sentence recalled and to be resentenced as a misdemeanant pursuant to
In Rivera, we held that nothing in Proposition 47, including the provision that the conviction “shall be considered a misdemeanor for all purposes,” alters existing rules regarding appellate jurisdiction. If the defendant was charged with at least one felony in an information, an indictment, or in a complaint that has been certified to the superior court under
The procedural context here is different from that in Rivera. This case does not involve either resentencing or the designation of a prior felony conviction as a misdemeanor under
As in Rivera, we identified the appellate jurisdictional question on our own motion and asked the parties to brief the issue. Both parties agree that this case is a felony case and that this court, as opposed to the appellate division of the superior court, has jurisdiction over Lynall‘s appeal. We agree with the parties. We hold that appellate jurisdiction in cases where a defendant is charged with a felony in an information, an indictment, or in a complaint that has been certified to the superior court under
The facts are based on evidence presented at the preliminary hearing. In September 2014, Santa Cruz County Sheriff Deputy Stephen Ragusano received a complaint from a motorcycle shop that several people were camping illegally in the wooded ravine behind the shop and “leaving feces in that area.” Deputy Ragusano met with the reporting party, who showed him an area adjacent to the shop‘s parking lot where the campers were located. According to Deputy Ragusano, it was not a public camp ground and no one was allowed to camp there. The reporting party asked Deputy Ragusano to patrol the area and to ask the campers to “move along.”
On October 1, 2014, at night, Deputy Ragusano chased a suspect in a “strong-armed robbery” into the wooded area behind the motorcycle shop and lost contact with him. On October 5, 2014, Deputy Ragusano and two other deputies patrolled the wooded area. Deputy Ragusano saw three tents in a clearing in the ravine. The deputies announced their presence and asked the campers to come out of their tents. Defendant emerged from one of the tents. Deputy Ragusano testified that defendant resembled the robbery suspect he had chased into the ravine a few days earlier. Deputy Ragusano asked defendant for his name and date of birth, which defendant provided. Deputy Ragusano then asked his dispatcher to run a status check to determine whether defendant had any warrants. The dispatcher reported that defendant was a “parolee at large,” which means defendant had absconded from parole supervision. The dispatcher also reported that there was an active parole warrant for his arrest. Deputy Ragusano confirmed the warrant, placed defendant in handcuffs, and then searched his tent.
Inside the tent, Deputy Ragusano found (1) a glass pipe with burn marks, (2) a “loaded syringe” with a liquid substance that tested presumptively positive for methamphetamine, (3) a small glass container with a wet cotton swab inside that tested presumptively positive for methamphetamine, (4) three knives, and (5) a 15-inch billy club. Deputy Ragusano testified that there was a usable amount of methamphetamine both in the syringe and on the cotton swab.
Parole Agent Jeffrey Clark testified that on October 5, 2014, defendant was on active parole with search terms, that defendant had absconded from parole in Pasadena, and that a court had issued a parole warrant for his arrest on September 17, 2014.
Procedural History
The prosecution filed a complaint that charged defendant with one felony count of possession of methamphetamine (
Initially, defendant pleaded not guilty to all counts and denied the enhancement allegation. Defendant then filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained in the search of his tent. The prosecution opposed the motion.
On November 4, 2014, the court conducted a preliminary hearing. The court also took evidence and heard argument on the motion to suppress. At the end of the preliminary hearing, the court held defendant to answer and denied the motion to suppress. The court observed that if Proposition 47 passed in the general election that day, then
At the trial setting conference, the parties entered into a negotiated disposition. Both counsel agreed that in light of the passage of Proposition 47, the felony charged in count 1 (possession of methamphetamine,
On November 6, 2014, defendant also pleaded guilty in the petty theft case (No. M81505), and the court found probation violations in the other two cases (Nos. M27331 and F26937) based on defendant‘s conviction in this case.
Defendant filed his notice of appeal on the Judicial Council form for misdemeanor appeals and the case was assigned a case number in the
Discussion
Pertinent Provisions from Proposition 47
The voters enacted Proposition 47 on November 4, 2014. It went into effect the next day. (
Relevant here, Proposition 47 amended
As amended by Proposition 47,
As we observed in Rivera, Proposition 47 also created a new resentencing provision—section 1170.18. Under
Statutes and Rules Governing Appeals
Generally speaking, in criminal cases, the Courts of Appeal have “appellate jurisdiction over appealable orders from ‘felony case[s]’ ” and “[t]he appellate divisions of the superior courts, by contrast, have appellate jurisdiction over appealable orders from ‘misdemeanor case[s].’ ” (People v. Nickerson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 33, 36 [26 Cal.Rptr.3d 563] (Nickerson), citing
The California Supreme Court has held that under
California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(a) (all further rules citations are to the Rules of Court) provides in part: “(1) To appeal from a judgment or an appealable order of the superior court in a felony case ... the defendant or the People must file a notice of appeal in that superior court. . . . [¶] (2) As used in (1), ‘felony case’ means any criminal action in which a felony is charged, regardless of the outcome. A felony is ‘charged’ when an information or indictment accusing the defendant of a felony is filed or a complaint accusing the defendant of a felony is certified to the superior court under . . .
In the companion case, Rivera, we described our previous decision in Morales, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th 1587, as well as the holdings in Nickerson, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th 33 and People v. Scott (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 525 [164 Cal.Rptr.3d 459]. (Rivera, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1097-1099.) We need not reiterate that discussion here, except to note that the procedural facts here closely resemble those in Morales and that this case, like Morales, is therefore distinguishable from Scott and Nickerson.
In summary, we hold that since defendant was charged with a felony in the complaint and the parties agreed that the complaint would be deemed the information for the purpose of initiating felony proceedings in the superior court, this case is a felony case for the purpose of appellate jurisdiction and the appeal lies in this court. Although defendant‘s offense was ultimately reduced to a misdemeanor as part of plea negotiations and declared a misdemeanor by the trial court, it still meets the rule 8.304(a)(2)(C) definition of a felony case.
That defendant erroneously filed his notice of appeal on the Judicial Council form for misdemeanor appeals does not alter our conclusions. (See Morales, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1593, 1599 [although the defendant‘s notice of appeal was filed on the form for misdemeanor appeals, the case was a felony case for the purpose of appellate jurisdiction]; but see People v. Scott, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 533 [appellate court considered forms used to initiate appeal in determining that case was a misdemeanor case].)
Disposition
Appellate jurisdiction properly lies with this court. The appeal will proceed on the merits in this court.
Rushing, P. J., and Premo, J., concurred.