People v. Williams, No. S114184.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Writing for the Court: MORENO, J.
• Citation: 110 P.3d 1239,35 Cal.4th 817,28 Cal.Rptr.3d 29
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Willis WILLIAMS, Defendant and Respondent.
• Decision Date: 16 May 2005
• Docket Number: No. S114184.

28 Cal.Rptr.3d 29
35 Cal.4th 817
110 P.3d 1239

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
Willis WILLIAMS, Defendant and Respondent

No. S114184.

Supreme Court of California.

May 16, 2005.

Rehearing Denied June 22, 2005.¹

28 Cal.Rptr.3d 30

Tony Rackauckas, District Attorney, and Brian F. Fitzpatrick, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant

Diane Nichols, under appointment by the Supreme Court, San Diego, for Defendant and Respondent.

MORENO, J.

Defendant was charged with two offenses that could be prosecuted as either felonies or misdemeanors. Such alternate felony-misdemeanor offenses are commonly known as "wobblers." The prosecutor charged the offenses as felonies, but at the conclusion of the preliminary examination, the court determined pursuant to Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b)(5) that the charges were misdemeanors. The prosecutor moved in superior court to reinstate the felony complaint under Penal Code section 871.5, which motion was denied. The People filed separate appeals from the magistrate's order determining the charges were misdemeanors and from the superior court's denial of the motion to reinstate the felony complaint.

We must decide whether the People may appeal the magistrate's determination entered at the preliminary examination that the wobbler offenses were misdemeanors rather than felonies, and whether the People may appeal the superior court's denial of the motion to reinstate the felony complaint. We conclude that the People may not appeal the magistrate's determination under Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b)(5) that wobbler offenses charged as felonies were misdemeanors. The superior court's denial of the People's motion to reinstate the felony complaint is appealable, but that appeal is without merit, because the superior court could not properly review under Penal Code section 871.5 the magistrate's determination that the wobbler offenses charged as felonies were misdemeanors.

FACTS

On October 31, 2000, an amended felony complaint was filed charging defendant

28 Cal.Rptr.3d 31

Willis Williams with assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1),² and battery with serious bodily injury in violation of section 243, subdivision (d). The complaint further charged a three-year sentence enhancement under section 12022.7, subdivision (a), for personally inflicting great bodily injury in the commission of a felony and alleged that defendant had suffered two prior convictions for serious or violent felonies within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (e)(1), and had served a prior prison term for one of those offenses within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b)

On November 14, 2000, a preliminary examination was held in Orange County Superior Court before Judge Andrew Banks. Evidence was introduced that during a "pickup" basketball game at a recreational center in Fountain Valley on the afternoon of October 8, 2000, defendant engaged in a verbal dispute with the victim, James Hundley, while they were playing on opposite teams. The dispute centered around whether one of defendant's teammates had been fouled. The victim said there was no foul because it was a "late call." Defendant disagreed, saying, "whether or not it's a late call, you know, it's still a foul." The exchange ended, but a short time later defendant asked the victim: "If I hacked you up and you woke up in a hospital bed, you woke up and yelled `foul,' would it still be a foul?" The victim responded that that would not happen. Defendant did not appear to be angry.

As play continued, the victim and defendant both pursued the basketball at the other end of the court. The victim grabbed the ball and turned his back to defendant, swinging his elbow in the process. The victim's elbow may have hit defendant. Defendant then swung with his left arm while still behind the victim and "punched the victim in the jaw" with a closed fist. The victim fell to the court "like a tree, just straight sideways" and "bounced off the floor. He hit his head on the ground and ... he was out cold." Defendant looked at the victim and asked him if that was a foul and then ran to his automobile.

The victim suffered a skull fracture and was taken by ambulance to a hospital while unconscious where he underwent surgery for two hematomas: one on the right frontal lobe and one on the right temporal lobe. His condition was described as "life-threatening." It was unknown whether permanent brain damage had occurred. The victim had no memory of the incident.

The court, observing that intentional fouls are part of sports, questioned whether defendant's actions constituted "felony conduct" and stated: "So, I'm going to exercise my discretion in the interest of justice under Penal Code section 1385 ³ and reduce the charges to a misdemeanor." The court docket states: "The Court hereby exercises its discretion under PC 17B(5)⁴ and declares this matter to be a

28 Cal.Rptr.3d 32

Misdemeanor as to count(s) 1, PC 245(A)(1) — ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON. [¶] The Court hereby exercises its discretion under PC 17B(5) and declares this matter to be a Misdemeanor as to count(s) 2, PC 243(D) — BATTERY WITH SERIOUS BODILY INJURY."

On November 15, 2000, the People noticed a motion to reinstate the felony complaint pursuant to section 871.5⁵ to be heard on November 29, 2000. On November 29, 2000, the hearing on the motion was continued to December 15, 2000.

On December 5, 2000, defendant entered pleas of guilty to the misdemeanor counts over the objection of the prosecutor, who asked that the matter be continued until the court had ruled upon his motion to reinstate the felony complaint. The case was continued for sentencing to January 23, 2001.

On December 15, 2000, a hearing was held on the People's motion to reinstate the felony complaint. On December 18, 2000, the court issued a written ruling denying the People's motion "on the ground that Penal Code Section 871.5 does not permit review of an order reducing a felony to a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code Section 17(b)(5)." The court reasoned that the magistrate's reduction of the felony charges to misdemeanors "cannot be construed as a dismissal" of the felony complaint, adding: "Having determined that the magistrate's discretionary act under section 17(b)(5) is not a dismissal, this court lacks the authority to entertain the People's motion, and cannot therefore reach the issue of the propriety of the reduction of the charges to misdemeanors."

On December 21, 2000, the People filed a notice of appeal from the superior court's December 18, 2000, order denying the motion to reinstate the felony complaint. On December 26, 2000, the People filed a notice of appeal from the magistrate's November 14, 2000, order determining the felony counts to be misdemeanors.

The Court of Appeal consolidated the two appeals and held that the magistrate's order reducing the felony charges to misdemeanors was "not a dismissal under section 871" and thus was not a proper subject of a motion to reinstate the felony complaint under section 871.5. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the motion to reinstate the felony complaint. The Court of Appeal further held that the magistrate's order reducing the felony charges to misdemeanors was not appealable and dismissed the appeal from that order. We granted review.

DISCUSSION

The prosecution in a criminal case has no right to appeal except as provided by statute. (People v. Douglas (1999) 20 Cal.4th 85, 89, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 816, 972 P.2d 151.) "The Legislature has determined that except under certain limited circumstances the People shall have no right of appeal in criminal cases. [Citations.] ... [¶] The restriction on the People's right to appeal ... is a substantive limitation on review of trial court determinations

28 Cal.Rptr.3d 33

in criminal trials." (People v. Superior Court (Howard) (1968) 69 Cal.2d 491, 497-498, 72 Cal.Rptr. 330, 446 P.2d 138.) "Appellate review at the request of the People necessarily imposes substantial burdens on an accused, and the extent to which such burdens should be imposed to review claimed errors involves a delicate balancing of the competing considerations of preventing harassment of the accused as against correcting possible errors." (Id. at p. 501, 72 Cal.Rptr. 330, 446 P.2d 138.) Courts must respect the limits on review imposed by the Legislature "although the People may thereby suffer a wrong without a remedy." (Id. at p. 499, 72 Cal.Rptr. 330, 446 P.2d 138.)

The People assert that the two appeals at issue here are authorized by section 1238.⁶ The appeal from the denial of the People's motion pursuant to section 871.5 to reinstate the felony complaint is expressly authorized by subdivision (a)(9) of section 1238, which permits a People's appeal from "[a]n order denying the motion of the people to reinstate the complaint or a portion thereof pursuant to Section 871.5." Regarding the appeal from the order determining the charged offenses to be misdemeanors, the People rely upon subdivision (a)(1) of section 1238, which permits an appeal from "[a]n order setting aside all or any portion of the indictment, information, or complaint," and subdivision (a)(8) of section 1238, which permits an appeal from "[a]n order or judgment dismissing or otherwise terminating all or any portion of the action...." We first will consider the appeal from the denial of the People's motion to reinstate the felony complaint.

Appeal from Denial of Motion to Reinstate Felony Complaint

As noted above, subdivision (a)(9) of section 1238 permits a People's appeal from "[a]n order 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

28 Cal.Rptr.3d 34

if the superior court lacks jurisdiction to...