Enriquez

This case was accepted by the Court of Appeal on certification from the superior court appellate department under rule 63, subdivision (a), California Rules of Court.

The question of law as enunciated by the appellate department of the superior court is “Has the adoption of Government Code § 41803.5 in 1967 changed the rule set forth in Menveg v. Municipal Court [1964] 226 Cal.App.2d 569 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 232 ] that a city attorney has no jurisdiction to file or prosecute an alleged violation of Penal Code §272?” The opinion rendered by the appellate department answered this question in the negative.

Defendant was charged in count II of a complaint filed in the Municipal Court, Los Angeles Judicial District, with a violation of section 272, Penal Code. On the court’s motion said count II was dismissed because the city attorney was going to prosecute the case. It was stipulated that no district attorney was present. The issues involved the respective jurisdictions of the city attorney and the district attorney to file and prosecute violations under section 272 of the Penal Code.

*426 Prior to the filing of the complaint in this ease the district attorney had given the city attorney…