Koski v. James

• Decision Date: 22 April 1975
• Citation: 47 Cal.App.3d 349,120 Cal.Rptr. 754
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Daryl Dwayne KOSKI, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Duncan M. JAMES, et al., Defendants; PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interet and Respondent. Civ. 35004.

Page 754

120 Cal.Rptr. 754

47 Cal.App.3d 349

Daryl Dwayne KOSKI, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Duncan M. JAMES, et al., Defendants;

PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interet and Respondent.

Civ. 35004.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

April 22, 1975.

As amended May 5, 1975.

Hearing Denied July 9, 1975.

Robert H. Heeb, Fort Bragg, for plaintiff and appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen. of the State of California, Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., Edward P. O'Brien, Asst. Atty. Gen., Derald E. Granberg, Stan M. Helfman, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for real party in interest and respondent.

BRAY, ^* Associate Justice.

Appellant appeals from the Order of the Mendocino County Superior Court denying his petition for Writ of Mandate.

Issues Presented:

1) The practice of filing all felony complaints and holding all preliminary examinations in one judicial district does not deprive appellant or other voters in other districts of equal protection of the laws.

2) The practice of filing all felony complaints and holding all preliminary examinations in one judicial district does not deprive appellant or other felony defendants who reside in other districts of equal protection of the law.

Record:

A complaint was filed in the Justice Court of the Ukiah Judicial District, Mendocino County charging appellant Koski with two felonies. The magistrate who was also the judge of the justice court in Ukiah proposed to conduct the preliminary hearing. Appellant made a motion to have the matter transferred for preliminary hearing to the judicial district in the county where the alleged crime was committed. The motion was denied.

Appellant then petitioned for a writ of mandate in the Mendocino County Superior Court seeking (1) that his criminal case be transferred for preliminary hearing to the Justice Court of the Ten Mile Judicial District, Mendocino County; (2) that the District Attorney of Mendocino County be ordered to specify in all felony complaints filed in the county the judicial district wherein the alleged crime(s) was committed and to file each such felony complaint in the judicial district where the alleged crime(s) was committed; and (3) that the Judge of the Justice Court of the Ukiah Judicial District be commanded to refrain from accepting for filing in that justice court any felony complaint not alleging that the crime(s) was committed in that judicial district and to refrain from proceeding with a preliminary hearing when the complaint did not so allege. The petition was denied.

Statement of Facts:

Appellant filed his petition for writ of mandate and his appeal from its denial, as a registered voter, for himself, and all others similarly situated, and as a defendant in a criminal matter, for himself, and all others similarly situated.

Appellant is a registered voter and elector of the Ten Mile Judicial District, Mendocino County. Respondent Duncan M. James is the District Attorney of Mendocino County, and respondent Hale McCowen, Jr. is the Judge of the Justice Court of the Ukiah Judicial District, Mendocino County.

As a matter of policy the district attorney files all felony complaints in the Justice Court of the Ukiah Judicial District regardless of where in the county the alleged felony was committed. Judge McCowen, as a matter of policy, accepts said complaints for filing in the Ukiah Judicial District without consideration of where in the county the allegec crime was committed. The complaints so filed do not state the judicial district within which the alleged crime was committed.

Mendocino County has a population of 53,000 and an area of 3,500 square miles. There are five unincorporated cities in the county. Ukiah is the county seat with an approximate population of 11,000; Willits, Fort Bragg, Mendocino and Point Arena each have populations of under 5,000. The county is divided into nine judicial districts, each with its own justice court and judge, and each having equal jurisdiction to accept and file felony complaints and hear preliminary examinations. The judge of each judicial district is elected solely by residents and registered votes of that judicial district. Sixty percent of the residents and registered voters of the county reside outside of the Ukiah Judicial District and, therefore, cannot vote for the judge of that district.

There are three jails in Mendocino County. The county jail is in Ukiah and all accused felons are booked into the county jail. The other two jails are in the Ten Mile and the Little Lake Judicial Districts and are classified as holding facilities only. There are approximately fifty attorneys in the county, 80 percent having their offices in Ukiah. The public defendanter's two attorneys have their offices in Ukiah. The district attorney's staff is composed of six attorneys, three of whom handle all criminal prosecutions in the county. There are two superior court departments in the county; both are in Ukiah. There are six certified stenographic reporters in the county; two work full-time for the superior court.

The district attorney filed a complaint in the Justice Court of the Ukiah Judicial District charging appellant with two felonies. The complaint did not state the judicial district where the alleged crimes were committed. In fact, the alleged crimes occurred in the Ten Mile Judicial District (in Fort Bragg) and all witnesses reside there. In good weather it is a three-hour trip over mountain roads from the Ten Mile Judicial District to the Ukiah Judicial District. Said roads upon numerous occasions are impassable because of mountain slides and cave-ins.

1) Voters not deprived.

Appellant contends '. . . the voters of the County of Mendocino not residing in the Ukiah Judicial District have no vote for the judge of that district who accepts for filing and hears all preliminary hearings in felony cases occurring within the County without regard to the judicial district in which they occur; thus sixty percent (60%) of the County's voters are being deprived of the right to vote for the judge who is responsible for protecting their community and enforcing the law that may be violated in their communities. Or, to put it another way, the voters of eight out of nine judicial districts of said County have no voice whatsoever in the election of the judge with these responsibilities. Such a denial is a violation of the Equal Protection Clauses of the California and United States Constitutions.' Appellant further asserts that because the right to vote is a fundamental interest the strict scrutiny test must be used in determining whether equal protection of the laws is here being denied.

Appellant is correct that in cases involving fundamental interests, especially where classifications involve voting rights, the courts apply a strict scrutiny test. ¹ However, the instant case does not actually involve the right to vote and appellant's arguments, therefore, have no merit.

Registered voters have the right to vote for and elect the judges in their judicial district. (Cal.Const., art. VI, § 16, subd. b.) However, when a felony complaint is filed a preliminary examination is held before a Magistrate, not a judge. (Wells v. Justice Court (1960) 181 Cal.App.2d 221, 224, 5 Cal.Rptr. 204; People v. Randall (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 972, 975, 111 Cal.Rptr. 590.) The cases and statute hold that a felony complaint may be filed in any judicial district in the county in which the offense was committed, and the magistrate of the court in which the complaint is on file may conduct the preliminary examination. (People v. Jones (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 619, 621, 34 Cal.Rptr. 618; Pen.Code, § 859.) A magistrate is purely a creature of statute, the holder of a statutory office separate and distinct from the elective office of judge. (Wells v. Justice Court, Supra; Pen.Code, § 808. ² ) A preliminary hearing is not a trial and a magistrate presiding at the hearing does not sit as a judge of a court and exercises none of the powers of a judge in a court proceeding. (People v. Conover (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 38, 49, 52 Cal.Rptr. 172; People v. Newton (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 187, 189, 34 Cal.Rptr. 888.)

When a judge of a particular judicial district acts in the capacity of a magistrate, he does not do so as a judge of a particular court but rather as one who derives his powers from the provisions of Penal Code, sections 807 and 808. (See People v. Newton, 222 Cal.App.2d 187, 189, 34 Cal.Rptr. 888.) By initiating proceedings before magistrates, no trial jurisdiction of any court is invoked.' (People v. Superior Court (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 727, 735, 57 Cal.Rptr. 818, 823.)

Equally it must be said that these preliminary proceedings do not invoke the jurisdiction of an inferior court. The action taken by a judge of an inferior court who has issued the order for arrest or before whom an arrested person is brought after an arrest without a warrant, is not action by a judge of any court. It is action by a magistrate as incumbent of a distinct and statutory office. People v. Cohen, 118 Cal. 74, 78, 50 P. 20; People v. Brite, 9 Cal.2d 666, 685, 72 P.2d 122; People v. Storke, 39 Cal.App. 633, 636, 179 P. 527; People v. Velarde, 59 Cal. 457.' (Wells v. Justice Court, Supra, 181 Cal.App.2d 221, 224--225, 5 Cal.Rptr. 204, 206; accord, People v. Randall, Supra, 35 Cal.App.3d 972, 975, 111 Cal.Rptr. 590.)

Justices of the supreme court, judges of the superior court, justices of the peace, and police judges, when sitting as magistrates, have the jurisdiction and powers conferred by law upon magistrates, and not those which pertain to their respective judicial offices. They derive their powers and jurisdiction from the constitution, operating with the acts of the legislature upon the subject.' (People v. Crespi (1896) 115 Cal. 50, 54, 46 P. 863, 864; accord, People v. Randall, Supra, 35 Cal.App.3d 972, 111 Cal.Rptr. 590.)

Although the...