Criminal
Jul. 27, 2002
Prosecutors Can Appeal 'Wobbler' Rulings by Judges
SACRAMENTO - Prosecutors may appeal sentencing decisions by judges that reduce "wobbler" offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The decision, which reversed a ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeal, could affect three-strikes cases in which judges treat wobblers as misdemeanors to avoid imposing lengthy prison sentences on defendants with prior strikes.
Writing for a 5-2 majority in People v. Statum, 2002 DJDAR 8321, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter held that appeals of sentencing decisions in wobbler cases are authorized under Penal Code Section 1238(a)(6).
That section allows a prosecutor to appeal when a court issues "an order modifying the verdict or finding by reducing the degree of the offense or the punishment imposed or modifying the offense to a lesser offense."
Reducing a wobbler from a felony to a misdemeanor amounts to an "order modifying the verdict by modifying the offense to a lesser offense" and may be appealed as an abuse of the judge's discretion, Baxter wrote.
Baxter was joined in his opinion by Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Associate Justices Ming W. Chin, Janice R. Brown and Carlos Moreno.
Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, joined by Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, issued a strongly worded dissent.
Reducing a wobbler from a felony to misdemeanor does not make the crime a lesser offense within the meaning of Section 1238(a)(6), Kennard argued.
"The sentence imposed on a wobbler determines the grade or class of the crime as either a felony or a misdemeanor, but the sentence imposed does not change the nature or identity of the offense and so does not modify the offense to a lesser offense," Kennard wrote. "Therefore, I would hold that the People may not appeal from a judgment imposing a misdemeanor sentence on a wobbler."
The authority of judges to treat wobblers as misdemeanors instead of felonies was established by the Supreme Court in 1997 in People v. Superior Court (Alvarez), 13 Cal.4th 968.
Since then, prosecutors have been allowed to appeal such decisions in cases that result in the defendant being sentenced only to probation.
Because of Thursday's decision, that authority now extends to defendants who received jail sentences, said Alex Ricciardulli, a three-strikes expert with the Los Angeles public defender's office.
"From a public policy standpoint it makes sense because it's a weighty decision to reduce a charge, especially when the defendant has a record that includes prior strikes," he said. "If anything, it should encourage judges to make a good record when they exercise this type of extraordinary review so that their ruling will survive appellate review."
In Statum, the defendant, Russell Hubert Statum, pleaded guilty to a felony charge of reckless driving while fleeing a police officer after he led police on a high-speed chase.
Statum allegedly had six prior strike convictions for charges ranging from first-degree burglary to forcible rape, according to court records.
At the sentencing hearing, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kenneth E. Vassie reduced the felony charge of reckless driving to a misdemeanor and sentenced Statum to one year in the county jail.
Prosecutors appealed, claiming the trial judge had abused his discretion. But the 2nd District dismissed the appeal, saying it was not authorized by Section 1238.
The Supreme Court reversed the appeal court and sent the case back for consideration on its merits.
Both the prosecutor and defense lawyer who argued the case say it should have only a limited effect on future three-strikes cases.
Prosecutors said they were already appealing sentencing decisions such as the one in Statum before the 2nd District rejected the appeal of the trial court's ruling.
"It simply affirmed what we thought was our right to do and what we were already doing," said Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Phyllis C. Asayama, who argued the case before the high court.
Santa Monica defense lawyer Dennis A. Fischer, who argued the other side of the case, said it simply "answered a previously unanswered question."
"It shouldn't be read too expansively as discouraging or frustrating judges who want to reduce convictions in three-strikes cases," he said.
Hudson Sangree
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com