Young

Defendants were charged in 11 counts with various narcotic offenses and with various possessions of firearms. They duly moved, under section 1538.5 of the Penal Code, to suppress evidence obtained as a result of their arrest and a search of the residence of defendant Young. The motion was denied by Judge Keene on December 17, 1974. Thereafter, the defendants moved, before Judge Baffa (to whom the case had been duly transferred) to “reopen” their previous motion. After receiving offers of proof and argument, Judge Baffa granted the request to reopen and granted the motion to suppress. The case was then dismissed. The People have appealed under paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of section 1238 of the Penal Code. We affirm.

No issue is raised on this appeal as to the correctness of Judge Keene’s original order denying the motion to suppress and the People do not, on this appeal, attack the correctness of Judge Baffa’s order. The sole issue raised and argued is whether Judge Baffa had jurisdiction to *51 entertain, prior to trial, 1 the request to reopen the motion and to rule on it after reopening.

Although the request was, in form, to “reopen” the hearing on the motion, in…

The People’s petition for rehearing is denied. The district attorney misapprehends the scope of our holding. We held only that a defendant, whose pretrial motion to suppress has been denied, but who has a legitimate ground for an in-trial motion, on new grounds, is not barred from presenting that motion by the fact that the trial judge elects (sensibly) to hear the new motion before he gets involved with other trial matters.

We did not hold that where a defendant has, prior to trial, indicated his intention to make a motion to suppress, such a motion loses its pretrial status by the fact that the court sets it for hearing on the day and in the department where the case is also set for trial.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied November 12, 1976.