People v. Domagalski
Decision Date | 19 October 1989 |
Docket Number | No. D008641,D008641 |
Citation | 214 Cal.App.3d 1380,263 Cal.Rptr. 249 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Robert Gerard DOMAGALSKI, Defendant and Respondent. |
Brian McCarthy, for defendant and respondent.
This appeal is from an order of the municipal court barring action on a misdemeanor complaint against Domagalski for violation of Vehicle Code sections 23152, subdivisions (a) and (b), and 23225 ( ). When an accused misdemeanant is released from arrest, he is given a "notice to appear" in court at a specific time. Under Penal Code section 853.6, subdivision (e)(3) a criminal complaint must be filed within 25 days after issuance of the "notice to appear." At issue in this case was the effect of failure to file the criminal complaint within the prescribed time. The trial court concluded that such failure deprived the court of jurisdiction, preventing the People from proceeding on the basis of a late-filed complaint, absent the issuance of a new citation (notice to appear). We conclude the court was in error. The appeal is entertained in accordance with Penal Code section 1466, subdivision (a)(2), which makes appealable "an order or judgment dismissing or otherwise terminating the action before the defendant has been placed in jeopardy."
On September 25, 1986, Robert G. Domagalski was arrested for violating Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a) ( ). He was taken to the San Diego county jail where he was released on his promise to appear for arraignment on October 27, 1986. The release was pursuant to Penal Code section 853.6.
On October 27, 1986, defendant appeared for arraignment through his counsel pursuant to Penal Code section 977. At that time a complaint had not been filed. On February 27, 1987, a complaint was subsequently filed charging defendant with violations of Vehicle Code sections 23152, subdivisions (a) and (b), and 23225. An arrest warrant was issued on March 9, 1987.
On April 3, 1987, defendant's counsel appeared in arraignment court and calendared a demurrer. Defendant contended that the complaint was barred by the provisions of Penal Code section 853.6, subdivision (e), which requires that a new and separate citation or arrest warrant be issued in cases where a complaint is not filed within 25 days of the date of arrest. The People argued that the provisions of Penal Code section 853.6, subdivision (e) did not apply to Vehicle Code section 23152 cases pursuant to People v. Ramirez (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 201 Cal.Rptr. 303.
On April 29, 1987, the trial court recalled the arrest warrant, overruled the demurrer 1 and barred further prosecution on the complaint. This appeal by the People ensued.
The contentions asserted by the People on appeal are as follows:
1. In accordance with Ramirez, the limitation imposed by Penal Code section 853.6, subdivision (e) does not apply to Vehicle Code violations;
2. Alternatively, the limitation imposed by Penal Code section 853.6, subdivision (e) does not apply to the book and release procedure provided for by Penal Code section 853.6, subdivision (a) and utilized in this case;
3. Even if the limitation did apply, the People complied by obtaining a warrant;
4. Issuance of the warrant was not in violation of Penal Code section 853.6, subdivision (f) ( ); and
5. Even if the warrant had been issued improperly, termination of the action was not the appropriate remedy.
(a) through (f) of section 853.6 of the Penal Code.' 3
therein also makes it clear that in cases where it is questionable whether only the original language of a statute is to be incorporated or whether the statutory scheme, along with subsequent modifications, is to be incorporated, the determining factor will be the legislative intent behind the incorporating statute. Legislative intent in this case is evident.
(Emphasis added.)
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sneed v. Saenz
...... (1993) 6 Cal.4th 801, 816, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 428, 863 P.2d 673; see also People v. Frawley (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 784, 794, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 555; People v. Pecci (1999) 72 .4th 1500, 1505, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 43; People v. Domagalski (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1380, 1386, 263 Cal.Rptr. 249.) . Here, unlike Palermo, ......
-
People v. Jones
......7, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 815, 847 P.2d 1031; People v. Kirk (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1488, 1498-1500, 267 Cal.Rptr. 126; People v. Domagalski (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1380, 1386, 263 Cal.Rptr. 249; In re Oluwa (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 439, 445, 255 Cal.Rptr. 35.) . In In re ......
-
Dep't of Fair Emp't & Hous. v. Law Sch. Admission Council Inc.
...... only a time-specific incorporation, the determining factor will be legislative intent.” People v. Anderson, 28 Cal.4th 767, 779, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 587, 50 P.3d 368 (2002) (quoting In re Jovan , 6 Cal.4th 801, 816, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 428, 863 P.2d 673 (Cal.1993)). See also People v. Domagalski, 214 Cal.App.3d 1380, 1386, 263 Cal.Rptr. 249 (Cal.Ct.App.1989) (“in cases where it is ......
-
Cal. Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, A125493.
......People v. Birkett (1999) 21 Cal.4th 226, 231 [87 Cal.Rptr.2d 205, 980 P.2d 912]( Birkett ).) [2] The ...( Id. at pp. 60–63, 195 P.2d 1; see, e.g., People v. Domagalski (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1380, 1385, 263 Cal.Rptr. 249 [when the canon of specific reference applies, ......
-
Table of cases
...v. Doggett (1948) 83 Cal.App.2d 405, §9:40.5 People v. Dolly (2007) 40 Cal.4th 458, §7:20.1, Appendix E People v. Domagalski (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1380, §3:33 People v. Dominguez (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 623, 627, §10:27 People v. Dorsey (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 729, §14:48 People v. Doss (1992) ......
-
Arraignment and pretrial matters
...§853.6 do not apply to VC violations, including DUIs. ( People v. Ramirez (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1; People v. Domagalski (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1380.) What remains is the original language from PC §853.6 as it read in 1970, as pointed out by the Ramirez court, that the complaint be file......