People v. Williams

*820 Opinion

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…

Dissenting.—The majority holds that the People have no right to appeal—and thereby creates the possibility that the People have no right to challenge at all—a magistrate’s decision at or before a preliminary hearing to reduce a felony wobbler to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b)(5). 1 I respectfully disagree.

The result reached by the majority is surprising. As the majority concedes (maj. opn., ante, at p. 833), the People have the right to appeal the very same determination when made at sentencing. (People v. Statum (2002) 28 Cal.4th 682 [ 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 572 , 50 P.3d 355 ] (Statum)) Therefore, the effect of today’s ruling is merely to bar the People from appealing only when the order is made at an early stage, on a thin or nonexistent record, and hence is more likely to be wrong.

The analysis used by the majority is novel. In People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 93 , 928 P.2d 1171 ], we rejected the argument “that a trial court’s exercise of discretion under the authority of section 17(b) should be unreviewable” (People v. Superior Court (Alvarez), supra, at p. 976) and found “no authority immunizing a trial…

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.…