Paredes v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 22 December 1999 |
Docket Number | No. B134960.,B134960. |
Citation | 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 350,77 Cal.App.4th 24 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Kevin A. PAREDES, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; The People, Real Party in Interest. |
James H. Barnes, Encino, for Petitioner.
Lloyd W. Pellman, County Counsel, and Gordon W. Trask, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
In a criminal case, one of two defendants timely moved to disqualify the trial judge and the cause was reassigned. (Code Civ. Proc, § 170.6.) When the last day on which the case could be tried arrived and the prosecutor was unable to proceed, the case was dismissed (Pen.Code, §§ 1382, 1387), then refiled (Pen.Code, § 1387) and assigned to the same judge to whom it had been previously reassigned. The other defendant then moved to disqualify the judge, who denied the motion on the ground that the refiled action is a "continuation" of the dismissed action. We conclude otherwise.
In July 1998, a complaint was filed charging Anthony M. Halas with murder.1 Halas was held to answer, an information was filed (case number PA030591), and the case was assigned to the Honorable Ronald S. Coen. Halas pled not guilty. On October 8, Halas moved to disqualify Judge Coen (Code Civ. Proc, § 170.6)2 and the case was reassigned to the Honorable L. Jeffrey Wiatt. On October 9, a complaint was filed charging Kevin A. Paredes with the same murder charged against Halas. Paredes was held to answer, an information was filed (case number PA031243), and the case was assigned to Judge Wiatt. Paredes pled not guilty. Over Paredes's objection, Judge Wiatt joined the cases against Paredes and Halas.
On June 28, 1999, both defendants announced ready but the prosecutor was unable to proceed. Paredes and Halas moved for dismissal (Pen.Code, §§ 1382, 1387) and their motions were granted. Later the same day, a complaint was filed (case number PA033609) alleging the same murder against Paredes and Halas, with an added special circumstance allegation (drive-by shooting). (Pen.Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(21).) A preliminary hearing was held, at the conclusion of which the magistrate dismissed the special circumstance allegation but held Paredes and Halas to answer on the murder count.
On July 29, an information was filed charging Paredes and Halas with the murder and the ancillary drive-by special-circumstance allegation. Without objection from either defendant, the case was assigned to Judge Coen. After Paredes and Halas pled not guilty, Judge Coen transferred the case to Judge Wiatt for trial. Paredes then filed a motion to disqualify Judge Wiatt (§ 170.6), who struck the affidavit on the ground that the current case is a "continuation" of the previous case in which Halas had already filed a motion pursuant to section 170.6. In response to a petition filed by Paredes in which he asked us to issue a writ of mandate ordering Judge Wiatt to accept the affidavit as timely, we stayed trial, issued an order to show cause (to which the superior court has filed opposition, but not the People) and set the matter for hearing.
Paredes contends the refiled case is not a continuation of the previously dismissed case. We agree.
As relevant, subdivision (a) of former section 1382 of the Penal Code provided that (Italics added.)
As relevant, Penal Code section 1384 provides that "[i]f the judge ... directs the action to be dismissed, the defendant must, if in custody, be discharged therefrom ...."
As relevant, Penal Code section 1387 provides: "(a) An order terminating an action pursuant to this chapter ... is a bar to any other prosecution for the same offense if it is a felony ... and the action has been previously terminated pursuant to this chapter ... except in those felony cases ... where subsequent to the dismissal of the felony ... the judge or magistrate finds [there exist certain specified conditions]." (Italics added.)
As relevant, Penal Code section 1387.2 provides that
Read together, these statutes mean that a felony case once dismissed for delay can be refiled, but (subject to certain exceptions) a felony case twice dismissed for delay cannot. In short, a third or subsequent prosecution is barred. (Ramos v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 26, 34, 184 Cal.Rptr. 622, 648 P.2d 589; Bodner v. Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal. App.4th 1801, 1804-1805, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 236; 5 Witkin & Epstein, Cal.Criminal Law (2d ed. 1989) Trial, §§ 2561, 2563 pp. 3069-3070, 3072-3073.) When the first action is terminated under this procedure and the People file a new complaint, a second preliminary hearing must be held and the evidence subjected anew to a magistrate's evaluation. (People v. Superior Court (Martinez) (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 738, 745, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 733.) In lieu of a required dismissal and permitted refiling, the parties may agree to proceed on the existing accusatory pleading, with the action "deemed" to have been "previously terminated." (Pen.Code, § 1387.2.) These statutes exist to protect a defendant's right to a speedy trial and must be construed to serve that overriding purpose.
As relevant, section 170.6 provides:
(Italics added.)
For almost 50 years, there has existed the possibility (some might say probability) that the sequence of events in this case could occur.3 For that reason, the mind boggles at the realization that, if it has happened, it has not become the subject of a published appellate decision. In the "close but no cigar" category,4 we have found the following cases:
In Jacobs v. Superior Court (1959) 53 Cal.2d 187, 1 Cal.Rptr. 9, 347 P.2d 9, a motion to disqualify a judge was filed just before a hearing on a motion to modify a custody judgment. The Supreme Court said the disqualification motion was not timely, explaining that, since the disqualification motion must be filed before trial has commenced, it necessarily "cannot be entertained as to subsequent hearings which are a part or a continuation of the original proceedings." (Id. at p. 190, 1 Cal.Rptr. 9, 347 P.2d 9.) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Table of cases
...198 Cal. Rptr. 489, §2:130 Pappa v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal. 2d 350, 5 Cal. Rptr. 703, §19:90 Paredes v. Superior Court (1999) 77 Cal. App. 4th 24, 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 350, §19:90 Parker, People v. (2022) 13 Cal. 5th 1, 293 Cal. Rptr. 3d 813, §§5:90, 7:50, 20:40 Parker, People v. (2017) 2......