California Forgery Possession Restricted Dangerous Drug Marijuana Misdemeanor Conviction Lawyers Attorneys

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SHIRLEY ANN GARNETT, Defendant and Respondent
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two
March 23, 1973

Respondent WAS charged by Information With One count of forgery in violation of section 470 of The Penal Code, one count of possession of a restricted dangerous drug in violation of Section 11910 Of The Health and Safety Code, and one count of possession of marijuana in violation Section 11530 of The Health Of The Safety Code. The information charged aussi That Before the Committee Of The offenses Described therein répondant The HAD Been Convicted In The Superior Court of Alameda County of possession of dangerous drugs, and In The Municipal Court for the Berkeley- Albany Judicial District was misdemeanor charge of possession of marijuana. Reflects the record thats the parties Stipulated The Prior misdemeanor conviction In The City for possession of marijuana short WAS INITIALLY By The Prosecution charged as a misdemeanor. Respondent to strike Moved From The Information The Prior conviction Which Occurred In The municipal court, And That motion WAS GRANTED on the ground thats the offense charged in WAS The First Instance as a misdemeanor and felony Therefor WAS has never offended. The People Have The Order Granting decision being from The Motion.

Issue:

Whether The Trial Court erred in Granting the defendants's motion to strike has information of Prior misdemeanor conviction?

IS A district attorney charged With The duty of Conducting Criminal Prosecutions, goal he has "substantial discretion in making a determination whether or not to begin a criminal Prosecution Given in a box. Until a District Attorney Election to Proceed with a criminal prosecution, files a Complaint or Obtain an indictment, a conviction claim, and And Then, year Alleged offense is Not Punishable In Any Manner. Malthus It Is That conviction was only after a judge CAN exercise whatever discretion IS Given To Him Regarding The Punishment by statute to Be Imposed.

A municipal misdemeanor conviction short of possession of marijuana Was Not a "felony offense" golden year offense "punishable as a felony" so as to Be as a loadable Prior conviction for The Purpose of enhancement of penalties we Subsequent conviction of felony charges of possession of Marijuana Under Health & Saf. Code, § 11530, and possession of a restricted dangerous drug Under Health & Saf. Code, § 11910, Where the offense Giving Rise to the Municipal Court conviction WAS INITIALLY By The prosecutor charged as a misdemeanor as Permitted by Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (A). Under Health & Saf. Code § § 11533, 11914, a "felony offense" or a "felony offense Punishable as a" Which Is an offense for The Law In The prescriber 's doing as state prison Either Or The sole alternative year penalty, Regardless Of The award Received, But The prosecutor's action in charging The offense as a misdemeanor removed The alternative of a prison sentence; It Was A misdemeanor From the moment The Complaint attached hereto. Insofar as this Prior IS Concerned, The appellant has not Been Convicted of an "offense for Which The Law In The prescriber 's doing as state prison Either Or The sole alternative year penalty. " Under the requirement of the Law, The City Short Could not impose a prison sentence.

Conclusion:

This short Held thats the conviction Could not Be Used to Increase defendant's punishment upon conviction, Even Though The Prior Crime Could Have Originally Been Punishable as a felony, Because The crime WAS Originally charged as a misdemeanor. Hence this short affirmed The Decision Of The trial short, defendant's motion Which GRANTED to strike Prior information of a misdemeanor conviction.

Disclaimer:

Thesis summaries are Provided By The SRIS Law Group. Theys Represent The Firm's unofficial Views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinion Should Be consulted.