Jurisdiction
Category > Jurisdiction
Updated 2/4/2024That the human trafficking enterprise began in California does not satisfy the prerequisites for territorial jurisdiction over the rapes committed in North Carolina.Defendant was convicted of numerous counts of sex trafficking and rape. However, California lacked territorial jurisdiction over four of the rapes that were committed in North Carolina. That the human trafficking enterprise began in California does not satisfy the statutory prerequisites for territorial jurisdiction in North Carolina.id: 27309
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to try defendant for conspiracy to commit a murder in Oregon where the acts committed in California were insufficient to establish attempted murder.A California court has a jurisdiction over a conspiracy to commit a crime in another state when the acts are sufficient to amount to an attempt to commit a crime. Defendant’s actions in California were insufficient to satisfy the overt act element. He planned to be a member of a group that would murder the victim in Oregon, and gathered weapons and inspected potential crime scenes, but he had not taken other actions to accomplish the murder from afar.id: 25548
Defendant’s 1994 plea to a violation of section 422.7 was void because that provision described a penalty provision rather than a crime. In 1994, defendant pled guilty to two counts of violating Penal Code section 422 following an attack against a gay victim. However, section 422.7 does not identify a crime but rather elevates certain crimes from misdemeanors to felonies. The judgment was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and was subject to collateral attack. A motion to vacate the judgment was the proper procedural vehicle to address to defect.id: 20990
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to retry defendant prior to the issuance of the remitittur.The Court of Appeal reversed defendant's conviction. The trial court thereafter acted in excess of its jurisdiction by retrying defendant prior to the issuance of the remitittur.id: 19081
Remand was required for a new Pitchess hearing where the custodian of police personnel records did not produce the entire file, describe what was missing or why it was not produced.Defendant filed a Pitchess motion seeking discovery of complaints against the arresting officer. The motion was denied and the record does not permit proper review because the custodian of records did not produce the entire personnel file for the court’s review, and did not establish on the record what documents were included in the file, and did not explain the decision to withhold the various documents. The matter was remanded for a new Pitchess hearing.id: 20537
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to find a minor who committed a sex act in Texas later failed to register as a sex offender in California.Petitioner was adjudicated by a Texas juvenile court to have committed a sex act that would require him to register as a sex offender in California where he lived with his mother. However, the California trial court later acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it imposed judgment on petitioner for failing to register because Penal Code section 290 did not require that he register.id: 20072
Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to order forfeiture of currency where the currency was not in actual or constructive possession of the court.The currency being subjected to forfeiture was ordered unconditionally released by a court, the People did not challenge the order; the currency was released and the order became final. The People instituted a civil forfeiture proceeding under Health and Safety Code section 11470 and the currency was declared forfeited to the People. However, the subject matter of the in rem proceeding was not in the actual or constructive possession of the court and the court therefore did not have subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, there was no justification to exercise in personam jurisdiction over appellant's attorney.id: 11588
The juvenile court in San Francisco had jurisdiction to hear a motion to withdraw a guilty plea which took place in San Mateo where the case was transferred to San Francisco for all purposes.Defendant argued the San Francisco County Juvenile Court erred in refusing to consider his motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Defendant admitted the allegation in the San Mateo County Juvenile Court. The matter was then transferred to the San Francisco court for all purposes. The San Francisco court had jurisdiction to hear the motion.id: 16866
Updated 3/6/2024The superior court retained jurisdiction over a murder committed in a national forest.Defendant argued that because the charged murder took place in a national forest, the case fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. However, California retained jurisdiction to administer the criminal laws on the land ceded to the federal government.id: 26643
Updated 2/24/2024The trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the motion to correct the sentence that was filed after the appeal had concluded.After the defendant’s direct appeal had concluded, he filed a motion in the trial court seeking to modify his sentence by reducing the restitution fine based on his ability to pay. The trial court denied the motion and defendant appealed. Because the motion to modify the sentence was filed after the conclusion of the direct appeal and there was no other basis for trial court jurisdiction over the motion, the order denying it was nonappealable.id: 26638
Updated 2/4/2024The trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the section 1170.95 petition until after the remittitur from the Court of Appeal had issued. On October 2nd, 2020, the superior court granted relief to the defendant, vacating his 2015 murder conviction and ordering resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. However, the issue was also being litigated in an appeal, which remanded the matter to the superior court. But the remittitur was not issued until October 30, 2020. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the petition until the remittitur had issued. The matter was remanded to the superior court for further proceedings.id: 27360
Updated 2/3/2024The Orange County Superior Court had jurisdiction over a crime committed off the coast of Italy.Defendant argued that Orange County lacked territorial jurisdiction to try a case of murder where the incident occurred on a cruise ship off the coast of Italy. However, Penal Code section 788a(a) confers jurisdiction to crimes committed outside of California. Where preparatory acts were committed in California, the state and not federal law controls.id: 27657
Updated 2/1/2024The trial courts order denying defendant's motion to correct an unauthorized sentence is not appealable.The trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain defendant's motion to vacate his sentence. Therefore, the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.id: 27968
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its ruling on the habeas petition following an affirmance of the ruling on appeal.The trial court granted defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and the court of appeal thereafter issued an opinion on appeal that constituted an “unqualified affirmance.” After the issuance of the remittitur, the prosecution filed a request for reconsideration in the trial court. However, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the matter after the appellate affirmance.id: 26166
Riverside County had sole jurisdiction to decide the Prop 47 issue after the transfer from San Diego under section 1203.9.The Riverside Superior Court granted defendant’s Prop 47 petition to reduce a felony drug conviction to a misdemeanor. Defendant had originally been sentenced by the San Diego Superior Court but “the entire jurisdiction” of the case had been transferred to Riverside under Penal Code section 1203.9. Contrary to the prosecution’s claim, Riverside had sole jurisdiction of the case and superior court in Riverside was the proper court to decide the petition.id: 24891
The San Joaquin County judge had jurisdiction to impose a death sentence in that county even though the trial itself had been transferred to Alameda County. Before the capital trial, the case was transferred to Alameda County but Judge Platt from San Joaquin presided over the trial. Judge Platt later moved the postverdict proceedings back to San Joaquin County where the death judgment was imposed. Contrary to defendant’s claim, Judge Platt had jurisdiction to impose the death penalty in San Joaquin County.id: 24520
The trial court had the inherent authority during trial to vacate an order dismissing two counts.Defendant argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate an order entered in the minutes which dismissed two counts, after ruling they were barred by the statute of limitations. However, the trial court had the inherent authority to reverse its incorrect legal ruling that occurred in the middle of a trial on other charges - well before a final resolution of the case. A dismissal of a count on an issue of law, when others are still to be tried, may be viewed as interim and reconsidered, particularly where there is no prejudice to the defendant. id: 21960
The trial court erred by ordering the preservation of evidence after a death judgment absent any pending proceeding.The trial court erred by entering an order requiring multiple public agencies and departments to “preserve” 22 categories of documents and other material that could pertain to the criminal proceedings that resulted in the defendant’s death judgment. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to make such an order absent any pending proceeding.id: 24222
Defendant impliedly consented to the court’s continued jurisdiction by agreeing to continue the restitution hearing to a date after his probationary term had expired.Defendant argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction to conduct the restitution hearing because his probation term (including the restitution condition) expired one week earlier. However, by agreeing to a continuance of the restitution hearing to a date after his probationary term expired, defendant impliedly consented to the court’s continued exercise of jurisdiction. . id: 24110
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the verdict once defendant filed the notice of appeal. Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, his motion for a new trial was denied and he filed a notice of appeal. The trial court thereafter erred by reducing the offense to second degree murder and imposing a lower term. The trial court had no jurisdiction to modify the verdict and resentence. While Penal Code section 1170, subd.(d) allows a trial court to modify a sentence within 120 days it does not authorize the court to change the verdict. The filing of the notice of appeal also divested the court of jurisdiction to find the first degree murder sentence was cruel and unusual or to modify the verdict under section 1181.id: 23824
Following Proposition 47, the Court of Appeal has appellate jurisdiction for any offense that was originally charged as a felony. Nothing in Proposition 47, including the provision that the conviction be considered a misdemeanor for all purposes, alters existing rules regarding appellate jurisdiction. If the defendant was charged with at least one felony that was certified to the superior court under Penal Code section 859a, it is a felony case and appellate jurisdiction lies with the Court of Appeal, regardless of the outcome of that charge.id: 23987
Court of Appeal has jurisdiction where the offense was charged as a felony even if it was later reduced to a misdemeanor under Prop 47. The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction over an appeal from a case in which the defendant was originally charged as a felony, but the offense was later designated as a misdemeanor under Prop 47, or the defendant was resentenced as a misdemeanant under Prop 47.id: 23988
The trial court lacked jurisdiction over a domestic violence offense committed in Hawaii.The Monterey County Superior Court lacked territorial jurisdiction over criminal charges against defendant arising from alleged acts of domestic violence that occurred in Hawaii even though defendant allegedly committed other violent acts against the victim a year later in California. The mere fact that a crime perpetrated in another state will affect the victim’s behavior when the victim returns to California, even if that was the perpetrator’s intent, does not establish that the crime was consummated in California or that any part of the crime occurred in California. id: 23262
Evidence supported the trial court’s finding that defendant was an adult when he committed the charged crimes.Defendant argued the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by sentencing defendant because of evidence that came out during trial showing he may only have been 17 when he committed the crimes. However, there was evidence supporting the trial court’s finding and supporting the court’s questioning of the Nicaraguan birth certificate produced late in the trial.id: 23121
Imposition of a greater sentence on retrial following a successful appeal was not unconstitutional where defendant was convicted of an additional count at the retrial.Defendant was convicted of all charged counts except for count three, as the jury was unable to reach a verdict on that count. He successfully appealed his convictions and was granted a new trial. The prosecutor recharged all counts, including count three. After the jury convicted defendant of all counts, the court imposed the same sentence it had previously imposed, but added eight months for count three. His increased sentence following the successful appeal did not violate the due process and double jeopardy clauses of the state constitution.id: 22037
The trial court had jurisdiction to substitute lesser included offenses after it granted defendant’s motion for acquittal on the greater offenses. During trial in a multiple count case involving drunk driving and fleeing from police, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the two DUI felonies for insufficient evidence. Contrary to defendant’s claim, the court thereafter did not exceed its jurisdiction by substituting two lesser included misdemeanor charges.id: 21365
The trial court retained jurisdiction to hear SVP commitment petitions where the prosecutor’s untimely filing was based on a good faith mistake of law.Evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the prosecution made a good faith mistake of law when it failed to timely file the SVP commitment petitions before the expiration of the defendants’ two year commitment periods. Because defendants’ unlawful custody was a product of the prosecution’s mistake of law, the good faith exception of Welfare and Institutions Code section 6601(a)(2) precluded dismissal of the untimely commitment petitions. Therefore, the trial court properly denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the petitions to extend commitment and the court had jurisdiction to proceed on the petitions.id: 21112
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify defendant’s restitution fines 10 months after sentencing when he was in prison.Defendant moved to modify his restitution fines 10 months after the judgment was entered when he was serving his prison sentence. However, while the court has continuing jurisdiction with respect to victim restitution, it lacked jurisdiction with restitution fines.id: 21188
Application of amended version of section 784.7 giving Riverside jurisdiction over an earlier San Bernardino case, thus subjecting defendant to the one strike law did not violate ex post facto provisions.Defendant was charged with committing a lewd act on a child in San Bernardino between 2001 and 2002, and another similar offense in 2007 in Riverside. Penal Code section 784.7 was amended after the alleged commission of the first offense to permit the charging of both violations in the Riverside Superior Court. The charging of the two offenses also subjected defendant to a life term under the one strike law because the violations involved two victims. Use of the amended version of section 784.7 which allowed the addition of the earlier San Bernardino charge did not violate ex post factor provisions. The one strike law was a habitual offender statute and when defendant committed the Riverside offense the amended version of section 784.7 was already in effect and so he was on notice that a new offense could subject him to the one strike law. id: 21182
Superior court has jurisdiction where the parties agreed the complaint could serve as the information. Defendant argued the superior court lacked jurisdiction to try him because no information was filed, and the stipulation that the complaint could be deemed the information was not a stipulation to jurisdiction. However, the stipulation was not a stipulation to jurisdiction but a stipulation that the complaint could become the information which conferred jurisdiction upon the superior court.id: 20572
The trial court had jurisdiction to reconvene the jury to conduct the trial on the prior conviction even though it had just announced that the jury was excused.After the verdict on the substantive counts the trial court excused they jury. However, before the jury left the box, the prosecutor advised the court the jury was still needed for a trial on the prior convictions. Under the circumstances, the trial court maintained the jurisdiction to reconvene the jury since it had not been exposed to outside influences and there was no prejudice to defendant.id: 20684
California had territorial jurisdiction over evasion of police case where defendant drove a stolen car onto a federal enclave where the attempted evasion began.Defendant was convicted of one count of auto taking and one count of attempting to evade an officer. He argued that California lacked territorial jurisdiction to convict him of the latter offense because the attempted evasion did not begin until he had entered the Camp Pendleton Marine base which is a federal enclave over which the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction. However, while the evasion began when defendant was pursued by military officers, the initial evasion was from a state peace officer who followed him onto the base. The military officers merely continued the pursuit. The trial court properly found there was a sufficient connection between the crime and California that it was reasonable for the state to prosecute the offense.id: 20466
Because defendant consented to the increased prison term as part of a plea bargain, he was estopped from complaining that the trial court exceeded is jurisdiction by imposing the modified term.Defendant pled guilty to a drug offense in 2003 and was sentenced to four years but the judge suspended the execution of sentence and imposed probation. A year later he admitted a probation violation and he was allowed to remain on probation, but the court increased the unexecuted term from four to five years. In 2006, he again violated the terms of his probation, which was then terminated and he was ordered to serve the five year term. The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by increasing the sentence from four to five years. However, defendant was not entitled to relief, first, because he agreed to the increased term as part of the plea bargain and second, because the challenge was untimely where he did not appeal from the order imposing the increased term.id: 20090
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to address a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of a section 1016.5 motion regarding lack of advice as to immigration consequences.Penal Code section 1016.5 allows a court to vacate a conviction only if the trial court has failed to advise the defendant of potential adverse immigration consequences at the time of the plea. The statutory motion cannot be used to assert defense counsel's failure to provide effective representation relating to immigration consequences.id: 20081
Supreme Court holds that kidnapping defendant from Mexico did not deprive court of jurisdiction.United States drug enforcement agents were indirectly responsible for the forcible abduction of a Mexican doctor from his office in Mexico and his removal to the United States to face criminal charges. He argued that his kidnapping violated the U.S. extradition treaty with Mexico, and that this deprived the court of jurisdiction to try him on the criminal charges. In a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its ruling in Ker v.Illinois,119 U.S. 436 (1886), that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to prosecute a criminal offense even though the defendant was kidnapped from a foreign country. The extradition treaty with Mexico did not require a different result, as the defendant was not brought to the United States under the treaty. Moreover, Mexico waived reliance on the treaty by failing to formally protest the abduction. Justices Stevens, Blackmun and O'Connor dissented.id: 9523
Trial court lacked jurisdiction to recall a sentence under section 1170(d) to allow the defendant to appeal discovery related issues.Defendant pled guilty to various drug related offenses after the trial court denied his suppression motion. Some time after sentencing, the parties believed defendant's discovery issues might not be cognizable on appeal because of the guilty plea, so the court recalled the sentence, allowed defendant to withdraw his plea, and allowed a court trial under the slow plea process. Defendant was convicted and the trial court imposed the same sentence. Defendant appealed from that judgment. However, the judgment was void as Penal Code section 1170(d) only permits recall for reasons related to lawful sentencing which this was not. The court lacked jurisdiction to recall the sentence.id: 20044
The superior court has concurrent jurisdiction over juvenile proceedings based on a violation of federal law.The minor argued the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the juvenile petition because the petition was based solely on his alleged violation of a federal criminal law - alien smuggling. However, there is no federal statute that removes concurrent state jurisdiction over a delinquency proceeding based on a violation of federal law, including immigration law.id: 19887
Juvenile court's failure to act within the section 654.2 12 month period did not deprive the court of fundamental jurisdiction over the case. The minor claimed the juvenile court had no jurisdiction to declare her a ward of the court on November 3, 2005, because its fundamental jurisdiction over the case expired on October 14, 2005, which was one year from the filing of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition. However, the time
limitation described in section 654.2 is directory and its violation did not result in the court's loss of fundamental jurisdiction over the case.id: 19754
The Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to consider the state's appeal from the juvenile court's granting of the minor's new trial motion since the minor waived jeopardy by challenging the court's original ruling.The juvenile court sustained the petition. Before the disposition hearing, the minor moved for a new trial based on a new Miranda-related U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The court granted the new trial motion and the prosecution appealed. The minor argued the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under Welfare and Institution's Code section 800, subd.(b)(4), because jeopardy attached when the first witness was sworn and he never waived jeopardy. However, by attacking the juvenile court's initial findings as to whether he was in custody while questioned, he impliedly waived jeopardy.id: 18786
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear unresolved issues in habeas petition where the prosecution had filed a notice of appeal from the earlier grant of habeas relief.The prosecution filed a notice of appeal from the original grant of habeas corpus relief in superior court. This vested jurisdiction in the Court of Appeal and divested the trial court of jurisdiction until the issuance of the remittitur. In this case what is pending is not the appeal from the conviction but the appeal from the writ itself - the same habeas action in which the new proceedings were held. Although the precise basis for relief (availability of imperfect self-defense based on delusion) was not relitigated, the same overall claim (validity of the plea) was at issue. Thus, the action was not independent from, or collateral to, the matter on appeal. Therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter any further order.id: 18536
The determination of whether California has jurisdiction over a crime which occurred in part outside the state is to be made by the trial court rather than the jury.The question whether a California court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a charge of a crime committed in whole or in part outside the state is a matter to be determined by the trial court rather than the jury because it is a procedural issue that does not determine guilt or innocence. In the present case, which charged acts of child molestation, defendant's acts of driving the girls across state lines in his truck with the intent to molest them constituted sufficient conduct to establish California jurisdiction over the crimes.id: 18310
Venue for the offense that was completed in LA was proper in Riverside County.Defendant picked up the child in Riverside County and drove her to Los Angeles where he had the opportunity to molest her. Venue for the offense that was completed in Los Angeles was proper in Riverside County.id: 18311
California had jurisdiction over the charges where the preliminary plans for the murder took place in the state.Defendant argued California lacked territorial jurisdiction over the murder charges. He claimed that because there was no evidence that he killed or prepared to kill the victim in California, the trial court erred by not submitting the factual question of the location of the murder to the jury. However, in light of the evidence showing the preliminary plans for the murder took place in California, the evidence was sufficient to establish California jurisdiction.id: 17546
Court properly excluded evidence of defendant's history of flashbacks and hearing voices where he testified that he heard the voices after the attack and not that the voices told him to attack the victim.Defendant argued the trial court erred by precluding him from testifying that he had an extensive history of hearing voices, flashbacks, and blackouts. He claimed the testimony he was precluded from giving was critical to the question whether he was capable of forming the specific intent to rape the victim. However, there was no error. Defendant testified he heard voices after he murdered and raped the victim. He did not testify that the voices told him to attack her. Therefore, any prior history of hearing voices was not relevant to the question whether he specifically intended to rape the victim. id: 17241
Pending the resolution of an appeal the trial court retains jurisdiction to supervise a probationer and to punish probation violations.The minor argued the notice of appeal challenging the denial of his suppression motion divested the juvenile court of jurisdiction to proceed to disposition. However, pending the resolution of an appeal, the trial court retains jurisdiction to supervise a probationer and to punish a violation of any probationary conditions.id: 17198
Body was "found" in San Bernardino for purposes of territorial jurisdiction where the van in which it was concealed was impounded by the police in Riverside and transported to a storage facility in San Bernardino.Defendant argued San Bernardino County lacked territorial jurisdiction to try him for the murder of Jones because the murder took place in Kern County and the body was found in a van in Riverside. However, the body was found in San Bernardino County in a decomposed state and concealed in the van which had been impounded by police in Riverside and towed to a storage facility in San Bernardino. Under a plain reading of the word "found" as used in Penal Code section 790, the court properly rejected defendant's claim that because the police first seized the van in Riverside, the body was found in that county.id: 16979
San Bernardino had jurisdiction to try the attempted murder charge where defendant attempted to kill an officer in Riverside in order to avoid detection for a kidnapping in San Bernardino.Defendant attempted to kill a police officer to avoid detection for an ongoing kidnapping. He argued San Bernardino County lacked territorial jurisdiction over the attempted murder which took place in Riverside. However, since the kidnapping commenced in San Bernardino, that county had jurisdiction to try the attempted murder charge.id: 16980
California had jurisdiction to prosecute an unlicensed doctor for murder following a botched unnecessary amputation in Mexico where preparatory acts where performed here.Defendant, a doctor whose license to practice medicine had been revoked, amputated the victim's leg for no medical reason. The victim requested the amputation because he suffered from an amputation fetish. Preparations for the surgery took place in California, but the surgery was performed in Mexico. The victim died from gangrene a few days after the surgery in a California motel. Defendant was convicted of murder and the unlawful practice of medicine. He argued California lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him since the crime occurred out-of-state. However, a recent case held jurisdiction lies if preparatory acts were done in California with an intent to complete the crime. That case (<i>People v. Morante</i> (1999) 20 Cal.4th 403) applied here. Application of the principle to defendant did not deny due process since prosection in California was foreseeable under the circumstances.id: 16379
California has jurisdiction to prosecute a defendant for in-state conspiracies to commit offenses out of state and for in-state aiding and abetting of out of state offenses.California courts have jurisdiction over the criminal prosecution of a defendant for conspiracy to commit an offense where the defendant, within the State of California, both entered into an agreement to commit the offense and committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, but the offense that was the object of the conspiracy was committed in another state. California courts also have jurisdiction over the criminal prosecution of a defendant for committing an offense based upon a theory of aiding and abetting the commission of that offense, where the defendant committed acts in California that aided and abetted the commission of the offense, but the offense was committed in another state.id: 15297
Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to decide CDC's appeal of a trial curt order to permit a spiritual adviser to remain with a defendant up until the time of his execution.The superior court issued a preliminary injunction ordering the Department of Corrections to permit a spiritual adviser of an inmate facing execution to remain with him until 25 minutes before execution, rejecting the CDC's claim that general security concerns necessitated the adviser's departure 45 minutes before execution. The Court of Appeal dismissed the CDC's appeal, holding that it fell within the California Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction over appeals in capital cases. However, the Court of Appeal did have jurisdiction to hear this civil matter.id: 14987
Retrial on the prior assault conviction following a reversal for insufficient evidence was not barred by double jeopardy, res judicata or law of the case.In an earlier opinion the Court of Appeal determined the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's finding that defendant had suffered a prior serious felony conviction for assault under Penal Code section 245, subd.(a)(1), which qualified as a strike under the three strikes law. The court reversed the sentence and remanded the matter for a retrial on the prior conviction allegation. The principles of res judicata, law of the case, and double jeopardy whether singularly or in combination, do not preclude a new trial on the issue of whether defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon in committing the crime underlying his prior assault conviction.id: 14984
Preliminary acts occurring in Orange County conferred territorial jurisdiction.Several preliminary acts leading to the consummation of the crimes occurred in Orange County. Defendant met his victims in Orange County; arrangements for the photographing session were made there; and on the morning of the murders, defendant, an accomplice and the victims met in that county before leaving for the desert in San Diego County. The totality of these acts was sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction on Orange County.id: 12057
Superior court had jurisdiction over the misdemeanor charges by virtue of their being properly joined with the original felony charge.Defendant was charged with one count of felony anal penetration with a foreign object and two counts of misdemeanor child molesting. He argued the superior court never had jurisdiction over the misdemeanor counts because they did not arise out of the incident supporting the felony charge. However, the counts were connected together in their commission in that they shared the common elements of use of defendant's home to commit the crimes against the male juveniles. In addition, the crimes were of the same class in that they all involved similar sexual misconduct toward minor male students. The superior court had jurisdiction over the misdemeanor charges by virtue of their being properly joined with the original felony charge.id: 12058
Superior court had subject matter jurisdiction over welfare fraud charges where the allegations were broad enough on their face to encompass felonies.Welfare fraud statute was amended in 1983 increasing the threshold for felony welfare fraud from $200 to $400. The district attorney failed to consider the amendments when the information was drafted in 1984 and alleged that amounts in excess of $200 had been obtained. However, the superior court had subject matter jurisdiction over the charges contained in the information since the allegations on their face were broad enough to encompass felonies and were not limited on their face or as a matter of law to misdemeanors. Moreover, appellant's failure to object or demur established her consent to treat the charges as felonies.id: 12059
Trial court had jurisdiction to correct the sentence and order an AIDS test.Defendant argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order a blood test for evidence of the AIDS virus pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.1 after he commenced his prison sentence. The trial court did not lack jurisdiction because the court's failure to order the AIDS test rendered the sentence unauthorized and subject to correction at any time.id: 12060
Jury was properly instructed it could only use the Mexican acts to help it decide if the California acts constituted the charged crime.Defendant was convicted of the unlicensed practice of medicine based on postoperative procedures performed in California following a surgical procedure in Mexico. He argued the jurisdiction instruction was erroneous because a state does not impose punishment for acts done outside its territory. However, since the Mexican surgery was clearly relevant, the jury was properly instructed it could only use the Mexican acts to help decide if the California acts constituted the charged crime.id: 12051
A telephone call for the purpose of planning a crime received within the forum county is an adequate basis for venue despite the fact the call was originated outside the county.Defendant argued Orange County had no territorial jurisdiction to prosecute defendant since the crimes took place in Los Angeles. However, there was evidence that the drug sales were arranged by telephone calls into Orange County, and jurisdictional venue rests in the county where preliminary acts leading to the commission of a crime occur.id: 12052
Court had jurisdiction to reconvene jury after guilt phase verdicts to determine the degree of the murders of which it found defendant guilty.After returning its guilt phase verdicts, the jury was reconvened in order to determine the degree of the murders of which it found defendant guilty. Defendant argued that reconvening the jury was beyond the trial court's jurisdiction. However, the jury remained under the trial court's control at the time it was reconvened, since the penalty phase was still to be tried by the same jury.id: 12053
Defendant's consent to the municipal court location was not required where the trial was conducted at a location designated by ordinance as appropriate for superior court sessions.Defendant was charged with first degree burglary and grand theft. The matter was tried in a courtroom usually occupied by a division of the Los Angeles Municipal Court and was presided over by a judge of the municipal court who had been assigned to sit as a judge to the superior court. Defendant argued that absent his consent to the location of the trial, the municipal court lacked jurisdiction to try the matter. (Government Code section 69753; California Rules of Court, rule 245.5b). However, because the trial was conducted at a location designated by ordinance as appropriate for sessions of the superior court defendant's consent to the location of the trial was not needed.id: 12054
Failure to raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction in superior court constituted a waiver.At defendant's preliminary hearing his attorney raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the Solano County Superior Court had no jurisdiction over the crimes which were committed in Yolo County. The issue was not raised again in superior court. The waiver of a defendant's right to trial of an alleged felony in the county of venue can be inferred from a mere omission to assert that right in superior court and need not be affirmatively shown on the recordid: 12055
Juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to vacate its judgment once the case was with the Court of Appeal.Defendant was tried first in juvenile court and then in adult court for the same offense. While the case was on appeal the juvenile court conducted a hearing to determine defendant's true age, found him to be an adult, and vacated the juvenile court judgment. However, because the case was on appeal and thus within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the juvenile court judgment. Even if the juvenile court had jurisdiction to vacate its judgment the order was not valid because defendant was denied his right to counsel at the hearing where his age was decided and the judgment vacated.id: 12056
Court had no jurisdiction to entertain discovery motion after the judgment of conviction was final.A trial court, after a judgment of conviction is final, has no jurisdiction to rule on a defendants motion for discovery.id: 11845
Superior court had jurisdiction to conduct the postindictment preliminary hearing.Defendant, indicted by the county grand jury, requested a postindictment preliminary hearing. He argued that upon the filing of his request the indictment became functus officio and that the state could not proceed against him until it filed a complaint with the municipal court. However, the superior court did not lack jurisdiction to conduct the postindictment preliminary hearing and defendant was properly bound over for trial.id: 11631
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245