Clingenpeel

Clingenpeel v. Municipal Court

Good Law
108 Cal. App. 3d 394·166 Cal. Rptr. 573·1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 2063
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 21, 1980Docket Nos. 56984, 57591, 57590California2,653 words

Opinion

Opinion

Potter, J.

On the People’s motion, their appeals from three judgments of the superior court have been consolidated. Each of the judgments, under substantially similar circumstances, granted a peremptory writ of prohibition directing the Municipal Court for the Antelope Judicial District to permanently desist and refrain from further proceedings upon misdemeanor charges pursuant to Vehicle Code section 23102 (driving while under the influence of alcohol). In each case, the complaint (or count) was amended to read that defendants did “unlawfully drive a vehicle, to wit, a non-motorized bicycle.” So amend ed, each count was demurred to by the defendants. The demurrers were overruled, and prohibition proceedings were commenced in the superior court.

The superior court heard all three matters at the same time and made findings of fact reciting the charges and amendments as above set forth. From these undisputed facts, the superior court concluded in each case that the municipal court was without jurisdiction to proceed, since “[t]he Legislature has not made the conduct with which petitioner is charged subject to criminal sanctions under the Vehicle Code.”

The sole issue in these…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.