People v. Gonzales

• Decision Date: 15 July 1965
• Docket Number: Cr. A
• Citation: 46 Cal.Rptr. 301,235 Cal.App.2d Supp. 887
• Court: California Superior Court
• Parties: 235 Cal.App.2d Supp. 887 PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Thomas Costello GONZALES, Defendant and Respondent. 6369. Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California

Page 301

46 Cal.Rptr. 301

235 Cal.App.2d Supp. 887

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Thomas Costello GONZALES, Defendant and Respondent.

Cr. A. 6369.

Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California.

July 15, 1965.

Byron B. Gentry, City Pros., for appellant.

James A. Gilbert, Pasadena, for respondent.

Before AISO, P. J., and FARIES and BREITENBACH, JJ.

BY THE COURT.

The People appeal from an order of dismissal under Penal Code section 1385 made by a municipal court on its own motion, whereby it dismissed a complaint charging a violation of Penal Code section 484 (petty theft) four days prior to the scheduled date set for trial in the absence of and without prior notice of its intended action to the City Prosecutor.

The case was set for trial on April 26, 1965. On April 22, 1965, in open court with the clerk of court, the defendant and defendant's counsel present, but in a room other than one of the four rooms designated as divisions of the Pasadena Municipal Court, the case was advanced for the purpose of change of plea from 'not guilty' to 'guilty'. The trial court refused to accept a plea of 'guilty' and then proceeded to examine the defendant (the record is silent as to whether defendant was put under oath). After such examination and after reviewing the police report (attached to Settled Statement on Appeal), the court concluded that defendant did not have the specific intent necessary to constitute the crime charged and on its own motion dismissed the complaint 'in the interest of justice'. At no stage of these proceedins was a representative of the City Prosecutor's office present, nor had the City Prosecutor been given any notice that such an examination of the defendant by the court would take place.

The defendant-respondent has failed to file a respondent's brief, and it may be inferred from such failure that he is conceding the merit of the appeal (Yarbrough v. Yarbrough (1956) 144 Cal.Rpp.2d 610, 612, 301 P.2d 426), but we proceed to consider the appeal on its merits.

The issue for decision is whether the prosecuting attorney must be given notice and an opportunity to attend proceedings at which a municipal court on its own motion is to consider and decide whether a misdemeanor complaint is to be dismissed under Penal Code section 1385, prior to the defendant being placed in jeopardy.

We have concluded that he must; for without such notice and opportunity to be present the ends of justice will not be promoted, but quite to the contrary, defeated.

In approaching this problem we remind ourselves of the basic concept of our system of criminal justice, of the peculiar position of a prosecuting attorney in criminal proceedings, the basic purpose of Penal Code section 1385, and the powers of a municipal court judge to act on his own motion under that section. Chief Justice Warren of the United States Supreme Court summarized the adversary nature of our criminal procedure and the position of the prosecutor in a criminal action in the recent case of Singer v. United States (1965) 380 U.S. 24, 85 S.Ct. 783, 13 L.Ed.2d 630; in the following words at page 790 of the Supreme Court Reporter, supra:

'The Constitution recognizes an adversary system as the proper method of determining guilt, and the Government, as a litigant, has a legitimate interest in seeing that cases in which it believes a conviction is warranted are tried before the tribunal which the Constitution regards as most likely to produce a fair result.'

And on page 791 of the Supreme Court Reporter, supra, he continued:

'* * * we reiterate the sentiment expressed in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 629, 633, 79 L.Ed. 1314[1321], that the government attorney in a criminal prosecution is not an ordinary party to a controversy, but a 'servant of the law' with a 'two-fold aim * * * that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.''

We are reminded that the powers now vested in the courts by the legislature by virtue of Penal Code section 1385, stem from the historical powers of nolle prosequi which were traditionally vested in the Attorney General of England and in the prosecuting attorneys in the American states. (People v. Superior Court (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 850, 854, 21 Cal.Rptr. 178; and see People v. Sidener (1962) 58 Cal.2d 645, 648, 25 Cal.Rptr. 697, 375 P.2d 641.) Even in those courts (those equivalent to our Superior Courts) where the power to dismiss in the interest of justice is not subject to appellate review, the courts generally weigh the recommendations and contentions as to the facts put forward by the prosecuting attorneys (see: 69 A.L.R. 244). Under our adversary system, the court prior to receipt of evidence in course of trial or formal proceedings is usually not informed of all of the circumstances of the alleged crime nor of the evidence available to the prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused; it does not have the investigative facilities available to the office of the prosecutor. (See: Moley, The Vanishing Jury (1928) 2 S.C.L.R.ev. 97, at p. 100.)

Section 1385 of the Penal Code indicates on its face that the purpose of the dismissal is the 'furtherance of justice'. In discussing the meaning of this term, the court in People v. Disperati (1909) 11 Cal.App. 469, said at page 476, 105 P. 617, at page 619:

'The Legislature has not attempted to define the expression 'in furtherance of justice,' and therefore it is left for judicial discretion, exercised in view of the constitutional rights of the defendant and the interests of society, to determine what particular grounds warrant the dismissal.'

And '* * * in contrast to the uncontrolled discretion of a trial judge in a superior court, under Penal Code, sec. 1385, the exercise of such a great power is fully subject to review upon appeal when an order of dismissal is made in the municipal court' where jeopardy has not attached. (People v. Winters (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d Supp. 876, 880, 342 P.2d 538, 541.) At least one of the reasons for review is to guard against dismissals which amount to 'the substitution of the predilections of a judge for the alleged predilections dilections of the peace officers' (People v. Winters, supra, 171 Cal.App.2d Supp. 876, 882, 342 P.2d 538, 543).

Thus the prosecutor has the right to appeal from a municipal court order of dismissal under Penal Code section 1385, made prior to trial. But the right to such an appeal would be aborted if he did not know of the proceedings which a trial judge was conducting on his own motion to determine an issue of fact upon which the...