In People v. Hyatt, the Supreme Court last week held felony assault charges against a defendant should not have been dismissed under Penal Code section 1381, which requires dismissal of pending criminal charges against a defendant who has already “been sentenced to and has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a state prison” for another crime if the defendant is not brought to trial on the new charges within 90 days after a trial demand. The court also concluded the district attorney had appropriately appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeal. Both issues were subjects of conflicting Court of Appeal case law.
The court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Kruger concluded the defendant’s 90-day-trial demand was premature because, although the defendant had been sentenced to a state prison term on unrelated charges, he had not yet been delivered to prison custody. The procedural issue was whether the dismissal was in a “felony case” appealable by statute to the Court of Appeal even though the felony charges were made by complaint instead of in an indictment or information.
The court reversed the judgment in the Fourth District, Division Three, Court of Appeal’s 2-1 published opinion, which had found a section 1381 violation. In construing the statute, the appellate court majority had disagreed with the Second District, Division Four, opinion in People v. Gutierrez (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 105 and the Fifth District’s opinion in People v. Clark (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 975. But the Supreme Court agreed with Division Three’s conclusion that the dismissal was appealable, a decision in conflict with the Third District’s decision in People v. Nickerson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 33, which the Supreme Court disapproved.
There was no petition for review in Nickerson. The Supreme Court denied review in Gutierrez and Clark.
