McMillon

Petitioners, Joyce M. McMillon and James E. Bell, seek writs of mandate and/or prohibition (Pen. Code, §§ 1538.5, subd. (i) and 999a 1 ) to compel the San Francisco Superior Court to grant their motions to suppress evidence and to set aside portions of the amended information *656 on file against them. As will be seen, we grant the writ with respect to certain of the section 12022.1 enhancement allegations and deny the petition in all other respects.

I. The section 12022.1 enhancements.

By an amended information filed on August 24, 1983, petitioners are charged (together with a codefendant not a party to this petition) with seven counts of robbery (§ 211). The victims and the dates of the robberies alleged are: Tayseir Origat, June 19, 1983; Bill Mak, June 20, 1983; Tommy Wong, June 20, 1983; Richard De Causemaker, June 21, 1983; Michael Wagner, June 22, 1983; Maria Canales, June 22, 1983; and Edward A. Collins, June 24, 1983. As to each robbery, the amended information alleges enhancements against petitioners McMillon and Bell within the meaning of section 12022.1, i.e., that each was out of custody on bail or on his/ her own recognizance while pending trial in an…

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, part I (the § 12022.1 enhancements).

I would prefer to reach a result consistent with People v. Superior Court (Price) (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 486 [ 198 Cal.Rptr. 61 ] and “consistent with the obvious intent of the Legislature.” (Id., at p. 489.)

The majority states the “language of section 12022.1 could not be more specific” in its use of the words “pending trial,” especially when, “as here, guilty pleas had already been entered in the prior offense, and where, necessarily, no trial was therefore pending.” That specificity, however, will become quite ambiguous in future cases when “pending trial” felonies are shaded between those which will have been committed between the first and second days of a 10-day trial, or on the fifth day of a 10-day trial, or on the last day of a 10-day trial. On which of these was the trial still “pending”? Is trial still “pending,” once it has commenced?

Far more compatible with the apparent legislative purpose and in resolution of the ambiguity inherent in use of the words “pending trial,” would be to view those words as relating to the trial process as a whole, to and including the imposition of…

John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, Ann K. Jensen and Frances Marie Dogan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest.

[Opinion certified for partial publication. [*] ]

OPINION

NEWSOM, J.

Petitioners, Joyce M. McMillon and James E. Bell, seek writs of mandate and/or prohibition (Pen. Code, §§ 1538.5, subd. (i) and 999a [1] ) to compel the San Francisco Superior Court to grant their motions to suppress evidence and to set aside portions of the amended information on file against them. As will be seen, we grant the writ with respect to certain of the section 12022.1 enhancement allegations and deny the petition in all other respects. [2]

By an amended information filed on August 24, 1983, petitioners are charged (together with a codefendant not a party to this petition) with seven counts of robbery (§ 211). The victims and the dates of the robberies alleged are: Tayseir Origat, June 19, 1983; Bill Mak, June 20, 1983; Tommy Wong, June 20, 1983; Richard De Causemaker, June 21, 1983; Michael Wagner, June 22, 1983; Maria Canales, June 22, 1983; and Edward A. Collins, June 24, 1983. As to each robbery, the amended information alleges enhancements against petitioners…