People v. Hanley

Decision Date06 March 1992
Docket NumberNo. A054690,A054690
Citation5 Cal.Rptr.2d 643,4 Cal.App.4th 340
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Michael James HANLEY, Defendant and Respondent.

Arlo Smith, Dist. Atty., Celia E. Rowland, Asst. Dist. Atty., City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco, for plaintiff and appellant.

Michael Hallinan, Joseph C. Morehead, John Doyle, San Francisco, for defendant and respondent.

ANDERSON, Presiding Justice.

The People appeal from the trial court's denial of their motion to reinstate complaint under PENAL CODE SECTION 871.51 upon finding it had no jurisdiction to proceed under that statute. We agree there was no jurisdiction in the lower court and, since our jurisdiction derives from the superior court in these instances (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11), we dismiss the appeal.

I. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

In November 1990 the San Francisco County District Attorney filed a complaint against defendant and respondent Michael James Hanley (defendant) alleging violations of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivisions (a) (driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage and/or drug), and (b) (driving with .08 percent alcohol in his blood). The complaint further alleged three prior convictions within the last seven years as to each count pursuant to Vehicle Code section 23175. 2

Defendant moved to strike the Stanislaus County conviction, which had been entered on his nolo contendere plea, on the grounds it was constitutionally invalid. His argument was twofold: (1) the court did not make a finding of guilty, and (2) the record did not disclose any factual basis for such a finding.

The magistrate granted the motion and, with allegations of only two prior convictions remaining, determined the charges were misdemeanors as a matter of law and transferred the cause to a municipal court. The People then moved unsuccessfully for reinstatement under section 871.5. 3

II. DISCUSSION

The Legislature enacted this statute effective January 1, 1981, to provide for superior court review of dismissals of criminal actions by magistrates under certain circumstances set forth in sections 859b, 861, 871 and 1385, as concurrently amended. (Stats.1980, ch. 938, § 4, p. 2966.) The purpose of these amendments is to overcome the holding of our Supreme Court in People v. Peters (1978) 21 Cal.3d 749, 147 Cal.Rptr. 646, 581 P.2d 651 4 which construed the former language of those sections as authorizing "courts" but not "magistrates" to dismiss actions. (Chism v. Superior Court (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 1053, 1061, 176 Cal.Rptr. 909.) Empowering magistrates to dismiss required concurrent prosecutorial authority to seek immediate superior court review of such dismissals so that successive dismissals by magistrates would not bar refiling under section 1387 as amended. 5 (Ibid.; see Legislative Councel's Digest, Assem. Bill No. 2383 (Stats.1980, ch. 938.) Section 871.5 was amended in 1982 to encompass additional dismissal statutes. (Stats.1982, ch. 671, § 1, p. 2740 [Sen. Bill No. 1743].)

A. Not a Section 1385 Dismissal

The People first try to persuade us that the magistrate struck the prior conviction pursuant to section 1385 and, thus, the action comes within the four corners of section 871.5. They argue there is nothing in the record to indicate under what authority the magistrate struck the prior conviction and, thus, section 1385 is a likely candidate for that power. Not so.

Section 1385 permits dismissal in the furtherance of justice on the judge's or magistrate's own motion or the application of the prosecuting attorney. Here the defendant moved for dismissal on constitutional grounds and at the hearing defense counsel identified the proceeding as a "Vehicle Code motion." Vehicle Code section 41403 permits a defendant to challenge the constitutional validity of a conviction under specified Vehicle Code sections, including section 23152, which was entered in a separate proceeding. (Veh.Code, § 41403, subd. (a).) When the separate conviction is based on a guilty or nolo contendere plea, the defendant must provide the court with certain evidence, including the court transcripts. (Id., subd. (b).) In this case defendant attempted to obtain all specified documents, and defense counsel lodged a letter from the Stanislaus County Clerk indicating there was no transcript of the proceedings.

We have no doubt that this was a motion pursuant to Vehicle Code section 41403, and that the magistrate, following the procedures set forth therein, dismissed the Stanislaus County conviction pursuant to that statute.

B. People v. Vlick

Next, the People call our attention to Vlick v. Superior Court (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 992, 180 Cal.Rptr. 742, which involved a dismissal pursuant to section 871 on the date set for preliminary hearing. At that time the prosecutor advised that another magistrate had granted defendants' motion to quash search warrants pursuant to section 1538.5, leaving the People without sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. Defendants framed the issue on appeal as whether the People could avail themselves of section 871.5 to review an adverse ruling under 1538.5.

The court saw the issue more broadly as whether the Legislature intended the People to use section 871.5 for superior court review of a magistrate's erroneous dismissal "arising out of the magistrate's ruling as a matter of law on any motion." (Vlick v. Superior Court, supra, 128 Cal.App.3d at p. 998, 180 Cal.Rptr. 742.) It held: "[D]ismissal of a complaint by a magistrate based upon a ruling on legal grounds on any motion properly before and decided by the magistrate is subject to review by the superior court on motion by the People on the ground that, 'as a matter of law, the magistrate erroneously dismissed the action,' and that this procedure is consistent with and in furtherance of the stated purpose of [section 871.5] and the intent of the Legislature in enacting it." (Id. at p. 999, 180 Cal.Rptr. 742; accord, People v. Salzman (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 676, 683, 182 Cal.Rptr. 748 [§ 871.5 motion is the proper procedure where complaint dismissed after preliminary hearing and after defense's § 1538.5 motion granted; see also People v. Childs (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1397, 1406, 277 Cal.Rptr. 456.)

Vlick is not authority for extending section 871.5 to orders striking a prior conviction under Vehicle Code section 41403. In Vlick, and presumably in Salzman, the statutory authority to dismiss was section 871, one of the provisions enumerated in section 871.5. Vlick's broad language referring to dismissals arising out of a magistrate's decision on any motion properly before him or her goes not to the subsection (a) enumeration of certain dismissal statutes, but to subdivision (b) which mandates that the motion to reinstate must be on grounds that the magistrate erroneously dismissed the action "as a matter of law." Within section 871.5 itself, there is a distinction between the source of dismissal authority and the particular legal reason for the dismissal.

C. Legislative Intent

The People finally urge that the Legislature intended section 871.5 to serve as a vehicle for reviewing all dismissals by magistrates. Their arguments do not persuade us. We begin with the obvious: "Words used in a statute ... should be given the meaning they bear in ordinary use. [Citations.] If the language is clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, nor is it necessary to resort to indicia of the intent of the Legislature...." (Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735, 248 Cal.Rptr. 115, 755 P.2d 299; City of Gilroy v. State Bd. of Equalization (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 589, 597, 260 Cal.Rptr. 723.) We decline to follow the plain meaning of a statute only when to do so would frustrate the manifest purpose of the legislation as a whole or lead to absurd results. (People v. Belleci (1979) 24 Cal.3d 879, 884, 157 Cal.Rptr. 503, 598 P.2d 473; Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1082, 1098, 282 Cal.Rptr. 841, 811 P.2d 1025.) Finally, we must remember that " ' ... courts are no more at liberty to add provisions to what is therein declared in definite language than they are to disregard any of its express provisions.' " (Id., at p. 1097, 282 Cal.Rptr. 841, 811 P.2d 1025.)

In our view the plain language of 871.5 evidences an intent to permit superior court review of dismissal orders by magistrates when a complaint has been dismissed pursuant to specifically enumerated statutory authority, i.e., sections 895b, 861, 871, 1008, 1381, 1381.5, 1385, 1387 or 1389. Vehicle Code section 41403 does not appear in this listing. Why should we add it? The People argue that certain committee and consent calendar digests indicate that the 1982 proposed amendments to section 871.5 (Sen. Bill No. 1743) add all other statutory grounds for dismissal of a complaint by a magistrate. (See also dicta in People v. Mimms (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 471, 478-479, fn. 7, 251 Cal.Rptr. 672: "In 1982 [section 871.5] was amended to add all other statutory grounds for a dismissal of the complaint by a magistrate, including dismissal of a complaint after sustaining a demurrer under section 1008.")

We do not consider these interim and unofficial digests as persuasive authority on legislative intent. However, we note that the Legislative Counsel's Digest 6 for Senate Bill 1743 states simply that the bill "would provide that [section 871.5 motions] apply to dismissals after a demurrer is sustained or because of certain previous dismissals and dismissals for lack of timely prosecution." (Legis. Counsel's Dig., Sen. Bill No. 1743 (1981-1982 Reg.Sess.), ch. 671.) This official digest summary comports with our view of the express intent of the statute.

The People also argue that since section 871.5 is the only vehicle for reviewing a magistrate's dismissal order, 7 the Legislature must have intended to include all statutory dismissal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • People v. Williams
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 16 Mayo 2005
    ...denying the motion of the people to reinstate the complaint or a portion thereof pursuant to Section 871.5." People v. Hanley (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 340, 342, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 643, however, held that if the superior court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a section 871.5 motion, the Court of Appea......
  • People v. Williams
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 31 Enero 2003
    ...v. Dethloff (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 620, 624, 11 Cal. Rptr.2d 814.) Defendant urges this point, and relying on People v. Hanley (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 340, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 643, contends the district attorney could not use the section 871.5 motion procedure to compel superior court review, and the ......
  • People v. Sanchez, A153473
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 21 Octubre 2019
    ...grounds not listed in section 871.5, the superior court did not err when it denied the motion to reinstate.In People v. Hanley (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 340, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 643 (Hanley ) disapproved on other grounds in People v. Williams (2005) 35 Cal.4th 817, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 29, 110 P.3d 1239 (Wi......
  • People v. Superior Court (Feinstein)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 18 Octubre 1994
    ...was dismissed for insufficiency of the evidence and may be reviewed under section 871.5. Defendant relies upon People v. Hanley (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 340, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 643, which concluded that a superior court was without jurisdiction to review a motion to reinstate a complaint under secti......
2 books & journal articles
  • Prior convictions of separate offenses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • 30 Marzo 2022
    ...§871.5 for a motion to reinstate the complaint. Section 871.5 was amended in 1993 to overturn the decision in People v. Hanley (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 340. §4:20 PRIOR CONVICTION SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT LAW IN GENERAL §4:21 Right to Jury or Court Trial See §9:13. §4:21.1 Challenging Out-of-State ......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • 30 Marzo 2022
    ...People v. Hanes (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th Supp. 6, §7:20.9 People v. Haney (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 472, §9:104.1 People v. Hanley (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 340, §4:17.2 People v. Hannon (1977) 19 Cal.3d 588, 601, §5:24 People v. Hannon (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 94, §12:24 People v. Hansen (1992) 10 Cal.App......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT