 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ulloa v. Municipal Court for East Los Angeles Judicial District of Los Angeles County12/22/1981
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR
Civ. No. 62060
1981.CA.40030 ; 126 Cal. App. 3d 1073; 179 Cal. Rptr. 332
December 22, 1981
PAUL ARTHUR ULLOA, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR THE EAST LOS ANGELES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT; THE PEOPLE, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST AND APPELLANT
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. C-312064, Philip Saeta, Judge.
John K. Van de Kamp, District Attorney, Donald J. Kaplan and Eugene D. Tavris, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
Wilbur F. Littlefield, Public Defender, Dennis A. Fischer, Anita Susan Brenner, Albert J. Menaster and John Hamilton Scott, Deputy Public Defenders, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
Opinion by Kingsley, J., with Files, P. J., and Woods, J., concurring.
Kingsley
This is an appeal by the People of the State of California from a judgment granting a writ of mandate and from the resulting
peremptory writ of mandate. The superior court directed the respondent municipal court in the writ to vacate its prior order overruling Mr. Ulloa's demurrer to a misdemeanor complaint and to instead make a new order sustaining the demurrer, or in the alternative, to amend the misdemeanor complaint.
Petitioner and respondent herein, Paul Ulloa, was charged by misdemeanor complaint in municipal court with a violation of Vehicle Code section 23105, subdivision (a). The complaint recited that on November 14, 1979, respondent "did wilfully and unlawfully operate a motor vehicle upon a highway while under the influence of a drug." The "drug" or "family of drugs" relied upon as the basis for the offense was undescribed and undesignated in the complaint.
Respondent Ulloa filed a written demurrer to the complaint on the ground that the complaint failed to specify the drug or family of drugs being relied upon as the basis for the charged offense and that this omission constituted a failure to give him proper notice of the charges against him violating his right to due process of law. The commissioner overruled Mr. Ulloa's demurrer on the ground that the lawful ingestion of drugs is not in issue in a Vehicle Code section 23105 case, finding that the restraints of Sallas v. Municipal Court (1978) 86 Cal. App. 3d 737 [150 Cal. Rptr. 543] do not apply.
Mr. Ulloa, the defendant, petitioned for writ of mandate to set aside the court's order overruling his demurrer, and to require this prosecution to specify in the complaint the drug relied upon as the basis for the violation of Vehicle Code section 23105, subdivision (a).
The superior court judge granted Ulloa's petition for writ of mandate on the ground that a complaint must designate the drug or family, class or group of substances relied on as the basis for the offense, in order to give the defendant adequate notice of the offense of which he is accused and to comply with the defendant's right to due process. The court reasoned that, without knowing the drug or family of drugs, the defendant at trial will be unable to show that he did not exhibit the symptoms or behavior ordinarily exhibited by persons ingesting that family of drugs.
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|