Using a ~sealed warrant,~ police searched defendant's home and seized small amounts of drugs. Upon being charged, defendant brought a motion in the magistrate's court to traverse and suppress the warrant. After the motion was denied, defendant pled guilty, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
On appeal, the prosecution moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the motion to suppress had not been renewed in the superior court as (allegedly) required.
Issue:
When a defendant enters a conditional plea of guilty in magistrate's court, reserving the right to contest the seizure of evidence on appeal, is he required to renew his motion in the superior court and, if so, does his failure to do so deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal?
Argument: No
1. Penal Code section 1538.5 subd. (m) explicitly provides "A defendant may seek further review of the validity of a search or seizure on appeal from a ...plea of guilty... provided that at some stage of the proceedings prior to conviction he or she has moved for ... the suppression of the evidence."
2. Subdivision (m) explicitly allows conditional pleas of guilty reserving the right to contest the lawfulness of a precursor search on appeal. The sole requirement is that the legality of the search be contested "at some stage" in the lower court proceedings. There is no requirement that the issue be contested more than once; nor is there any requirement that the issue be raised in superior court proceedings as opposed to proceedings in the magistrate's court. The section does not require any further action "If there is no ambiguity in the language, we presume the Legislature meant what it said and the plain meaning of the statute governs." (People v Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1215)
3. The alleged "failure" to renew the motion in the inferior courts is not a jurisdictional defect in any event. It is well established that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is the sole and necessary step for vesting appellate jurisdiction in a court of appeal. (People v. Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 650). Appellant's notice here was timely filed and clearly indicated that it was taken from a guilty plea based on denial of his suppression motion. California Rules of Court provide that, in such cases, the notice of appeal is sufficient if it indicates that the appeal is taken from "the denial of a mtion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5..." (Rule 8.304, subd. (b)(4).)
4. Under the plain and unambiguous language of the Penal Code and Rules of Court, the court of appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appellant's case and appellant had not forfeited his suppression issue by defaulting on any further procedural requirement.
Appellate Court Ruling:
Stay tuned.
Critique:
2. Subdivision (m) explicitly allows conditional pleas of guilty reserving the right to contest the lawfulness of a precursor search on appeal. The sole requirement is that the legality of the search be contested "at some stage" in the lower court proceedings. There is no requirement that the issue be contested more than once; nor is there any requirement that the issue be raised in superior court proceedings as opposed to proceedings in the magistrate's court. The section does not require any further action "If there is no ambiguity in the language, we presume the Legislature meant what it said and the plain meaning of the statute governs." (People v Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1215)
3. The alleged "failure" to renew the motion in the inferior courts is not a jurisdictional defect in any event. It is well established that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is the sole and necessary step for vesting appellate jurisdiction in a court of appeal. (People v. Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 650). Appellant's notice here was timely filed and clearly indicated that it was taken from a guilty plea based on denial of his suppression motion. California Rules of Court provide that, in such cases, the notice of appeal is sufficient if it indicates that the appeal is taken from "the denial of a mtion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5..." (Rule 8.304, subd. (b)(4).)
4. Under the plain and unambiguous language of the Penal Code and Rules of Court, the court of appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appellant's case and appellant had not forfeited his suppression issue by defaulting on any further procedural requirement.
Appellate Court Ruling:
Stay tuned.
Critique:
