In People v. Superior Court (Mitchell), the Supreme Court yesterday held that a superior court exceeded its jurisdiction in reducing a charged felony to a misdemeanor after a preliminary hearing and before sentencing. It also ruled that the prosecution can challenge such a reduction only by a discretionary writ petition, not an appeal, and it offers guidance for writ practice.
The court’s unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero concludes that “[t]he trial court had no authority to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor before it was called upon to exercise its discretion at sentencing.” About the appealability issue, the court said that “the procedural posture of the proceedings matters” and that “the People’s appeal from a pretrial order carries with it the potential for prejudicial delay in a way that the People’s appeal following trial does not.” Nonetheless, the opinion states, “a trial court’s unauthorized order reducing a wobbler offense charged as a felony to a misdemeanor is an act in excess of jurisdiction, and it is therefore reviewable by writ when the balance of interests supports the intervention of a higher court.”
Finally, the court also explained an important distinction between the effect of an appeal and the effect of a writ petition. In general, an appeal stays the challenged trial court decision, but a writ petition does not. “Except in very rare cases,” the court said, “neither the filing of a petition for writ of mandate nor the issuance of an order to show cause stays the challenged order or further proceedings in the trial court.” Thus, if a party needs to have an order put on hold pending disposition of a writ petition, they should affirmatively ask the reviewing court for a discretionary stay.
The court affirms the Second District, Division Six, Court of Appeal published opinion, but it also disapproves it “to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion,” the inconsistency being that Division Six said the order reducing a felony to a misdemeanor was appealable.
Division Six’s opinion said it “disapprove[d]” one of its earlier decisions on the appealability issue. (People v. Superior Court (Mitchell) (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 595, 599.) But it seems to be an open question whether a Court of Appeal can disapprove (or overrule) an opinion, as opposed to simply disagreeing with it. (See discussion of Cohen v. Superior Court here.) The Supreme Court didn’t directly answer the question, but, when it related the history of the case, instead of reporting that Division Six had disapproved the earlier opinion, it said “[t]he Court of Appeal disagreed with an earlier opinion by the same district and division.” (Emphasis added.)