 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wells v. Municipal Court for Sacramento Judicial District of Sacramento County12/16/1981
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
Civ. No. 20662
1981.CA.40058 ; 179 Cal. Rptr. 128; 126 Cal. App. 3d 808
December 16, 1981
KENNETH M. WELLS, AS PUBLIC DEFENDER, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR THE SACRAMENTO JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, RESPONDENT
Kenneth M. Wells, Public Defender, Sacramento County, and Everett J. Avila, Assistant Public Defender, for Petitioner.
Jeff Brown, Public Defender (San Francisco), and Noel Marcovecchio, Deputy Public Defender, City and County of San Francisco, as Amicis Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
L. B. Elam, County Counsel, and Thomas A. Darling, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.
Opinion by Carr, J., with Puglia, P. J., and Blease, J., concurring.
Carr
By petition for writ of prohibition the Sacramento County Public Defender, Kenneth M. Wells, challenges the validity of sentencing guidelines established by respondent, Municipal Court of Sacramento, for use in cases of prostitution and drunk driving .
Petitioner contends the guidelines are: (1) mandatory but even if discretionary are unconstitutional in application; (2) violative of due process as they are mechanistic and contravene a nonmandatory sentencing scheme established by the Legislature; (3) contrary to statutory law; and (4) legislation by a judicial body.
Respondent argues, inter alia, that petitioner, in his official capacity, lacks legal authority to file this action, as he is representing no particular person and essentially seeks an advisory opinion. We agree.
The duties of the Sacramento County Public Defender are contained in Sacramento County Code section 2.54.050 which directs that he defend "any person" financially unable to employ counsel and who is charged with a crime. That ordinance parallels Government Code section
27706, subdivision (a). Both the ordinance and the statute specify the official scope of the public defender's duties as being limited to acting on behalf of a specific individual in a particular matter. The public defender's duties arise only upon request of the defendant or request or order of the court. (Cf. In re Brindle (1979) 91 Cal. App. 3d 660, 673 [154 Cal. Rptr. 563].)
Under the remaining subdivisions of Government Code section 27706, the public defender is authorized to act in various other representative capacities; upon order or request of the court, or upon request of any person under specified circumstances. Neither ordinance, statute nor decision empowers a public defender to personally bring an action of this nature.
Petitioner contends his authority derives from " legislative intent in the progressive expansion of the duties of the public defender . . . ."
(Ligda v. Superior Court (1970) 5 Cal. App. 3d 811, 825 [85 Cal. Rptr. 744].) Ligda is neither on point nor controlling.
In that case a deputy public defender was ordered by the trial court to assist a defendant acting in propria persona. The appellate court denied the petition of the Public Defender of Solano County for a writ of prohibition to annul the trial court's order. The deputy had already appeared in the cause and the court ordered him to "serve in the more limited . . . function of advising and assisting . . ." th
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|