Burdzinski

People v. Burdzinski

Good Law
118 Cal. App. 3d 540·173 Cal. Rptr. 440·1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 1673
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 1981Crim. No. 22660California848 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Following a jury trial in the municipal court, Edward Burdzinski was convicted of indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. 1) and child annoying (Pen. Code, § 647a). He appealed to the appellate department of the superior court; the trial court judgment was remanded for revision of probation conditions but affirmed in all other respects. Burdzinski petitioned the appellate department for rehearing; two days later he applied for certification to the Court of Appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, 1 rule 63(b).) On March 11, 1981, the petition for rehearing was denied; his application for certification was granted. On April 8, 1981, a “Certification to Court of Appeal” was filed in the superior court. The three judges on the panel which decided the case certified that the transfer of the case to the Court of Appeal appeared necessary to settle an important question of law. (See rule 63(a).)

The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over cases originating in the municipal court is defined and limited by the Constitution, by statute and by court rules. (Corcoran v. Universal Guardian Corp. (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 904, 907 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 421 ].) The Constitution provides *542 that…

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.