Joseph v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County9/10/1992
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR.
Nos. B060781, B062121
1992.CA.40416 ; 9 Cal. App. 4th 498; 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 757
Decided: September 10, 1992.
BARRY JOSEPH, PETITIONER,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, RESPONDENT; THE PEOPLE, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST. THE PEOPLE, PETITIONER, V. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, RESPONDENT; MIGUEL CALDERON, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Nos. BS 009493 and BS 009276, Barbara Jean Johnson and Ronald E. Swearinger, Judges.
Wilbur F. Littlefield, Public Defender, Laurence M. Sarnoff, Jennifer Turkat, Richard N. Merenbach, Elizabeth Warner-Sterkenburg and Paula Montez, Deputy Public Defenders, for Petitioner in No. B060781 and for Real Party in Interest in No. B062121.
James K. Hahn, City Attorney, William N. Sterling and Janet G. Bogigian, Deputy City Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest in No. B060781 and for Petitioner in No. B062121.
Opinion by Epstein, J., with Woods A. M., P. J., and Taylor, J., Concurring.)
Epstein
In these consolidated writ proceedings we conclude that first offense driving under the influence cases are subject to the Vehicle Code section 41500 prohibition against prosecution of offenses pending when a defendant is committed to the custody of the Director of Corrections, unless the complaint alleges that the offense took place in a vehicle which requires a class 1 or class 2 license to operate. We also determine that section 41500 applies after a defendant's release from custody, and that the existence of a precommitment bench warrant has no effect on the application of the section.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Calderon
The first of these consolidated writ petitions is People v. Superior Court (Calderon). The prosecution and the defense agree on the essential facts in that case, which may be briefly summarized.
On May 19, 1987, the prosecution filed a misdemeanor complaint charging Mr. Calderon with a violation of section 23152, subdivision (a), driving while under the influence of alcohol; a violation of section 23152, subdivision (b), driving with a blood-alcohol level of .10 percent or above; and a
violation of section 14601.1, subdivision (a), driving with a suspended license. No prior driving under the influence convictions were alleged.
Mr. Calderon appeared in the Los Angeles Municipal Court without counsel on June 2, 1987. His arraignment was continued until the next day, June 3, 1987. On that date he failed to appear in court. A bench warrant was issued.
From March 28, 1989, to January 29, 1991, Mr. Calderon was committed to the custody of the Director of Corrections on an unrelated charge. On June 4, 1991, Mr. Calderon again appeared in the municipal court on his driving under the influence case. Shortly thereafter, on June 14, 1991, he filed a motion to dismiss the case, based on the provisions of section 41500. The court denied the motion, and Mr. Calderon petitioned the superior court for a writ directing the court to grant the motion. The petition was granted, and a peremptory writ of mandate was issued directing the municipal court to dismiss the case. In response, the prosecution filed this petition.
Joseph
Here, too, the prosecution
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|