Delouize

People v. Delouize

Good Law
13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 302·2004 Cal. LEXIS 4628·2004 Daily Journal DAR 6135·32 Cal. 4th 1223·89 P.3d 733
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 24, 2004No. S108119California3,627 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kennard, J.

May the trial court in a criminal case reconsider an order granting the defendant’s motion for a new trial after the time for the prosecution to appeal the order has expired? Here, the Court of Appeal held that a trial court retains jurisdiction to reconsider an order granting a new trial, and to reinstate a jury’s verdicts. We agree, and thus we affirm the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

I

Because the circumstances of the offenses are not relevant to the issue raised on appeal, this statement of facts is limited to the procedural history of the case.

*1227 The District Attorney of Mendocino County, by information, charged defendant Robert DeLouize with three counts of lewd acts with a minor (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)), and one count of continuing sexual abuse of a minor (id., § 288.5). The information alleged, for sentencing purposes (id., §§ 667, subds. (a), (d)-(e), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), that defendant had previously been convicted of the felony of robbery.

At the trial, after the prosecution had presented its case, the defense moved for a judgment of acquittal (Pen. Code, § 1118.1) on the count charging continuing sexual abuse of a minor. The court granted the…

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.