*1 Dist., Aug. Div. A032869. First One. 1987.] [No. PEOPLE,
THE Plaintiff and Appellant, WILLIAMS, and Respondent. ANDREW MAYNARD Defendant WILLIAMS, In re Corpus. ANDREW MAYNARD Habeas *4 Counsel General, White, Chief Assistant
John K. Van de Steve Kamp, Attorney Jr., General, Vance, Attorney Deputy R. Ronald A. Bass and John General, Attorneys for Plaintiff and Appellant. Smith, A. Appeal,
Malcolm the Court of under appointment Defendant and Respondent.
Opinion ELKINGTON, J. the superior from orders of have People appealed under Penal Code (1) denying court reinstatement of a criminal complaint, 871.5, and Maynard (Williams) section Andrew against defendant his causing a of habeas thus (2) granting corpus, Williams’s for writ charges return a trial of theft grand to federal in Missouri without prison in County, Alameda California. pending
California, States, to the and states of the nation are parties United other California, an “Interstate on In Agreement agreement Detainers.” Penal 1389 is lengthy, codified as Code section Section (section 1389). but may following. its here relevant be to the reasonably condensed portions against
It that a inmate of its whom provides any jurisdictions, prison de- jurisdiction, may criminal such make charges are another pending such jurisdiction charges. mand on the latter he be tried on such Upon a “he shall such within one hundred brought demand trial on If he not have eighty days” after the demand shall have been received. shall an been court shall enter brought 180-day period, trial within “the order based thereon dismissing [charges] any with “detainer prejudice,” effect,” shall returned cease to be of force or “the shall be prisoner state,” jurisdiction. receiving jurisdiction] sending [from known, 859a, 859b And as is better Penal Code sections perhaps provide charged for the before a one prompt “arraignment” with if examina- felony, a for dismissal tion is set or than 10 60 days, respectively, continued more depending, not, is, whether the of his subject custody arraignment or is from the date *5 relief plea. (See rarely or seek 859b.) (Criminally defendants charged § thereunder, may refiled.) for upon such a dismissal the charges Missouri, had
While a federal Williams prisoner defendant Springfield, California, charges grand four pending against County, him in Alameda 2, 1984, demand, Attor- by theft. He made received the District November ney county’s within County, of Alameda that he on that be tried was 1389). He days, provided by (section on detainers agreement California, there County, to on the brought Alameda for trial it There on the charges, been no examination pending. having for such a necessary became a bring prelimi- to Williams before magistrate Code, nary 858-883). examination (Pen. §§ 11, 1985, before January On Williams’s first California court appearance a he the case was continued by was not counsel and magistrate, represented 15, 1985, to January your attorney.” “to get 15, 1985, Judge January Municipal On Williams before Court appeared announced, to make a Conger special an who “I like attorney, with would I be continued “as attorney But then that the case appearance.” asked and also discovery look He requested, at the mountain of to be obtained.” his obtained, “to wear order that Williams be magistrate’s permitted was He stated that there own for court then clothes” personal appearances. ” time, that his “no Williams to waive “willing time that was problem,” Wil- As a arraignment.” (Our italics.) consequence “we will waiveformal continued, as formally request- liams was not The case was then arraigned. by attorney, January ed 1985. 23, 1985,
On the same with January before appeared a attorney, the same who once more stated that he “made special appear- ance, today.” I One bring but that “there are two matters would like to up discovery such matter and certain magistrate’s obtaining was the aid Williams; aid in his “legal fixing materials” of the other was a request fee, time county this case over to another paid “putting italics] [our without a or me make a entering plea having general appearance.” continued, January matter as this time to 1985. requested, 28, 1985, January attorney On the same before a different appearing magistrate announced that he was another again “making special appear- continued, ance Mr. again with Williams.” The case was at the apparently attorney’s February day again 1985. On that it was continued request, to February “to see if is to be attorney] going representing [the Mr. Williams or not.”
(We note at attorney’s this insistence that he point despite only had made a “special he had as a matter law made a appearance,” “ “general appearance.”) general ‘Whether an appearance spe cial is determined the character and not sought of the relief intention of the party it shall or shall not as a operate general special appearance. The statement a making of a defendant or that he is party is not special appearance necessarily conclusive. The test is—Did the party object only appear the consideration of the case or procedure *6 it because the court had jurisdiction not of the of the acquired person so, If, however, defendant If or then the he party? is appearance special. and asks for relief a in a appears only which could be given party case, case, or which it pending itself would be a in the is regular proceeding a directly the general appearance regardless adroitly, carefully of how appearance may (Jud be denominated or as . . .’” characterized special. 11, son v. Superior 361], Court 21 Cal.2d 13 P.2d overruled on (1942) [129 481, other in 484 grounds Goodwine v. Court 63 Cal.2d Superior (1942) [47 201, 407 P.2d no Cal.Rptr. 1].) attorney complaint Here the made of the magistrate’s jurisdiction, only and he relief obtainable because sought noted, jurisdiction. of such in a Significantly, attorney as the the course of general had said that “no time had “waived appearance there was problem, Moreover, time” and arraignment.” had “waived we note formal briefs, that Williams speaks attorney his as that it was his who had made issue, course, a general or The true of is special appearance. whether Williams had By made such an his demand for trial appearance. invoked,
California on there he and submit- manifestly had pending to, And, is jurisdiction ted the of “in it well general, that state’s courts. that exclu- judicial established to control vested power proceedings 774, 781 sively on Court 15 Cal.3d Superior (1975) counsel.” Townsend 251, 619].) Cal.Rptr. P.2d not The next of was appearance yet magistrate Williams before another 18, date, 1985. On that February but was instead on March contin- attorney another The were representing proceedings Williams. ued for to the next set day preliminary when Williams’s examination was 1,May 1985. examination, Williams’s day May
On the set for the preliminary of attorney 180-day requirement then announced he did that “not waive the interstate on agreement detainers.” until
(It will be withheld attorney’s noted that the announcement was trial precisely days elapsed had after of Williams’s demand receipt of Pen. 10-day 60-day district And limits attorney. of course the Code, 859b had long expired.) since § activity on
From on it much point appears unreported that there was case, counsel, such stipulations between the resulting has morning spent “that a substantial this been part of the court’s time of on talk this case we not come into court.” And there was though have examination, waivers, plea bargaining, resumption 859b, 859, 859a, but 1389. none relating to Penal Code sections a Finally attorney on June Williams’s dismissal moved in this arraigned “on Mr. grounds Williams was never properly and that delays early matter and of this stages there were excessive in the there and arraignment that there was never a instruction appears proper Mr. Detain- IAD [and, (2) Agreement because] [Interstate . . with a . provides prejudice.” dismissal ers] [for such] Wil- against motions the action magistrate granted the and ordered However, validity, he directed of its seemingly liams dismissed. doubtful *7 stayed. that the dismissal be noted, as court reinstate superior
The moved the People thereupon, by as 871.5. Contemporaneously Penal Code section complaint, permitted of motion, a writ court for superior with that petitioned in to the federal prison habeas his immediate return corpus seeking Missouri.
131 motion, and granted petition the People’s The court denied superior been he has now habeas which corpus upon of Williams for the writ of federal prison. returned to the Missouri from those rulings. are taken People’s appeals now for the we
We court reasons rulings superior shall reverse the state. per is a
Initially, strong public policy it is noted that there commit therefor. sons crimes in this state be and prosecuted punished who Code, (Pen. passim.) court, here, contentions.
In the Williams has three argued superior First, arraignment he insists that he was denied a prompt as Penal Code sections examination before the mandated 859a, timely trial he that he was denied the Secondly, argues 859b. we address by Penal 1389. And he insists that required finally, Code section of the issues in 1389 for a writ raised his Section court superior habeas whether not moot. corpus or such issues be now
The first invalid. two of the contentions are patently “general We iterate of his attorney, that Williams’s first in the course Court, stated (see 13), Judson v. 21 Cal.2d appearance Superior supra, time,” that Williams “we will waive to “waive his willing formal arraignment,” (Our italics.) and that there was “no time problem.” 859, 859a, Penal are in materia. pari Code sections and 859b
“ ‘ person “Statutes in are those relate to the same materia which pari of a or or to the same class of or In the construction thing, things. persons statute, all acts or in of its particular interpretation provisions, should relating having to the same the same subject, general purpose, ’ ” (Isobe it, read in one law.” together constituting connection with Cal.Rptr. Bd. 12 Cal.3d Unemployment (1974) Ins. Appeals [116 mind, the holding 526 P.2d With this rule in we observe 528].) of Blake v. Court Superior Cal.App.3d statutes, section its materia 470], (and that Penal Code 859b Cal.Rptr. pari reason custody by to those 859a) “only 859 and defendants apply §§ state, here, Where, as charges” receiving here pending in the California. in the already custody jurisdiction the accused is state sending sentence, custody” “in within reason of a conviction and he is not prior is in the defendant meaning phrase of those statutes. ‘whenever “[T]he defendants custody’ only as used in must be to those applied section 859b *8 solely custodial confinement attributable to the which [our italics] are the subject the preliminary hearing.” insistence, raised
We consider now Williams’s the issues that we address in his court section a writ of habeas superior corpus whether or not such issue be now moot.
“ . affect ‘It is now established law that where . . issues on appeal there is the interest and the general public rights parties, future litigated reasonable that the be probability questions again same will may, subject an court the appealed, appellate although appeal [moot and] dismissal, nevertheless issues involved.’ italics. adjudicate (Our People Shows, 290]; v. West Coast Cal.Rptr Inc. 10 Cal.App.3d Witkin, 509-513.) 1985) pp. and see 9 Cal. Procedure ed. (3d § by It court by is noted that the relief sought superior way commanding of habeas was that the court “issue a writ corpus sheriff to the County custody of Alameda to deliver forthwith petitioner Center, warden of the U.S. Medical significant, Missouri.” It is Springfield, seen, forthwith, as will soon be thereby he had his return requested the Missouri federal prison. court, noted,
The as “Petition for writ superior above thereafter ordered: of habeas corpus granted.” executed, Williams has superior court’s order has now been petition. attained all of
purportedly sought by corpus the relief he his habeas And court’s deci- according Williams’s briefs: “Following superior . . . without custody sion the defendant herein was returned to federal a trial in California. . . . returned to federal having Because defendant was Even custody, he cannot case. now be tried on the that underlie this if this court were to rule in favor a criminal prosecution of the People, cannot proceed.” issue ap-
Here also we find that the court erred. superior Although California, authority to be one of first find pears impression persuasive we elsewhere, 1330, Gray v. in United States v. Black Cir. 609 F.2d (9th 1979) (10th 1979) (Fla.App. Benson Cir. 608 F.2d and Florida v. Grizzell here, were, So.2d concerned with 1982) 399 1091. These cases as we are voluntarily They request- Interstate on Detainers. hold that Agreement otherwise, jurisdic- habeas one’s return to the ing by corpus application or i.e., state, such rights tion of his he has waived imprisonment, sending reasonable, and we are here insisted Williams. These are upon holdings them. apply
133 But, court’s supeior that the yet for other reasons we conclude be must reversed. rulings and the superior
We are of successive magistrates opinion transparent ploy. court were Williams’s manipulated dissent, majori in Mr. conflict with the As Justice Harlan’s uninvolved in 353, 367, 4fn. v. 372 U.S. ty Douglas (1963) opinion, [9 California leaves doubt S.Ct. record little reading L.Ed.2d 83 “A 814]: . delay proceedings . . . . designed efforts . were petitioners’ “1 and, likelihood, And: is at in all “It to manufacture an issue.” appealable things have some once that the trial court must in the nature of apparent matters, be dis judicial may over such to the end that business control 223 orderly Gaynor (1963) in an manner. . . v. patched People may not Cal.Rptr. criminal defendant Cal.App.2d 219].) [36 “[A] may He rights his constitutional in an to evade juggle attempt prosecution. reviewing . . . force a court will not trial court in the that a hope [err] tolerate find that the trial court has ‘We cannot wrong made choice. . .’” faith do . constitutionally such bad and we are not so. required Floyd 64], 464 P.2d Cal. 3d (People (1970) Cal.Rptr. [83 258, 287 22 Cal.3d grounds overruled other v. Wheeler People 890, 583 P.2d Cal.Rptr. 748].) reasons, For these several the People. we sustain the appeals The orders denying People’s complaint, motion to reinstate the is, are, the petition for a writ of habeas each reversed. granting corpus, Holmdahl, J., concurred.
RACANELLI, I concurin the result only. P. J. Racanelli, P.
A for a was petition rehearing denied 1987. September J., that the should granted. Respondent’s opinion petition 17, 1987. Court was December Supreme review denied