From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Four
Dec 15, 1986
187 Cal.App.3d 1222 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)

Summary

In Smith, the case upon which defendant relies, a complaint had been filed in municipal court but, at arraignment in superior court, it was discovered that there was no accusatory pleading on file in that court.

Summary of this case from People v. Dominguez

Opinion

Docket No. B016643.

December 15, 1986.

Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. A764568, David A. Horowitz, Judge.

COUNSEL

Ronald N. Ito, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, John R. Gorey and Robert R. Anderson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION


Robert Louis Smith appeals from his conviction following his guilty pleas to charges of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. 1) and forgery (Pen. Code, § 470) and the finding of truth of the enhancement allegation following his admission that he had served a prior prison term for a felony. (Pen. Code, § 667.5.) This case raises the question of the jurisdiction of the superior court to enter judgment in a case in which no information was filed. We hold that the superior court had no jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea absent the filing of an information.

Appellant was charged with grand theft and nine counts of forgery in a complaint filed in municipal court. Following the preliminary hearing, appellant was held to answer on those charges and a date was set for arraignment in the superior court. At the superior court arraignment, the following colloquy took place:

"THE COURT: This is not an information.

"MR. BERRY: There's a copy of the complaint inside that alleges the real offense, but no copy of an information to match it.

". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"THE COURT: And what about the — is there an information filed?

"MR. BERRY: There appears to be no information filed.

"THE COURT: Do you have an information?

"MR. BERRY: No. I have a copy of the complaint, however, and the complaint does have an enhancement alleging a prior."

The court and the parties thereafter apparently treated the municipal court complaint as an information. Appellant waived his constitutional rights, pleaded guilty to the first two causes of action of the complaint and admitted the truth of the enhancement allegation. The court accepted the plea. Appellant was subsequently sentenced.

(1a) Grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. 1) and forgery (Pen. Code, § 470) are offenses which must be prosecuted by indictment or information. (Pen. Code, § 682.) An information must be filed within 15 days of the accused being held to answer for the offenses. (Pen. Code, §§ 739, 872.) There is no evidence that an information was filed in this case, and it appears from the record of the proceedings held April 29, 1985, that the court and parties were aware that no information appeared in the superior court file.

Respondent argues that the information charging appellant in a prior felony prosecution, and presumably filed in this case in connection with the enhancement allegation (Pen. Code, § 667.5), should be treated as the accusatory pleading herein. The argument fails because that information does not allege the offenses to which appellant pleaded guilty, but rather offenses occurring approximately five years earlier.

(2) Timely filing of the valid information gives the superior court jurisdiction to try an accused. ( Rogers v. Superior Court (1955) 46 Cal.2d 3, 7 [ 291 P.2d 929]; Greenberg v. Superior Court (1942) 19 Cal.2d 319, 321 [ 121 P.2d 713]; People v. Nation (1952) 108 Cal.App.2d 829, 831 [ 239 P.2d 891]; Witkin, Cal. Criminal Procedure (1963) § 180, pp. 170-171.) (3) Failure to file an information is an irregularity of sufficient importance to the functioning of the courts that the parties cannot cure the irregularity by their consent to the proceedings. (See In re Griffin (1967) 67 Cal.2d 343, 348 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 1, 431 P.2d 625].) (1b) The superior court did not have jurisdiction to accept appellant's guilty plea or to enter judgment against him.

The judgment is reversed.

Woods, P.J., and Arguelles, J., concurred.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Four
Dec 15, 1986
187 Cal.App.3d 1222 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)

In Smith, the case upon which defendant relies, a complaint had been filed in municipal court but, at arraignment in superior court, it was discovered that there was no accusatory pleading on file in that court.

Summary of this case from People v. Dominguez

In Smith, the superior court and the parties recognized that no information had been filed and apparently proceeded on the municipal court complaint.

Summary of this case from People v. Infante
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT L. SMITH, Defendant and…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Four

Date published: Dec 15, 1986

Citations

187 Cal.App.3d 1222 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)
232 Cal. Rptr. 619

Citing Cases

People v. Infante

Defendant points out that the California Constitution, article I, section 14, requires that a felony be…

People v. Maldonado

The record in this case shows that on January 16, 2007, a preliminary hearing was held, defendant was…