Opinion ID: 1305204
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: prosecutor's discretion to seek lesser penalties

Text: Additional to its result, the majority holds that the district attorney lacks power to force the defendants into reduced punishment at the cost of a cherished protection. ( Ante, p. 241.) The majority, while recognizing that disobedience of a court order violates both Code of Civil Procedure section 1209 and Penal Code section 166, [3] forces the district attorney to proceed under the Penal Code, disallowing him discretion  even in the interests of justice  to seek the lesser penalty provided by the Code of Civil Procedure. I cannot agree that when the district attorney has the alternative of charging two separate offenses for the same act, one providing a trial by jury but a potentially greater penalty, he must charge the offense affording the right to jury. [4] The majority's requirement would frustrate legislative intent providing for two separate methods of statutory enforcement. In false advertising cases, for example, the prosecutor is given the choice of prosecuting under either Business and Professions Code section 17534 (a misdemeanor carrying a possible jail sentence of six months) or section 17536 (providing only for civil penalties (fine)). Under section 17534 a defendant is entitled to a jury trial; however, under section 17536 no such right exists. ( People v. Witzerman (1972) 29 Cal. App.3d 169, 176 [105 Cal. Rptr. 284].) Surprisingly, the majority would have the defendant mandatorily charged with the criminal offense and its attendant peril of loss of liberty instead of a simple fine. The district attorney has and should continue to possess the power to charge a lesser offense when facts warrant such discretion. It is the general rule that the duty to charge persons with crimes rests with the district attorney and courts do, and should continue to, exercise restraint in interfering with the free exercise of discretion.... ( Williams v. Superior Court (1973) 30 Cal. App.3d 8, 12 [106 Cal. Rptr. 89]; see also Taliaferro v. Locke (1960) 182 Cal. App.2d 752, 757 [6 Cal. Rptr. 813].) Here the district attorney decided in his discretion that it would be more appropriate to seek the lesser penalties under the Code of Civil Procedure rather than to pursue the potentially greater penalties under the Penal Code. There being no apparent abuse of discretion, no writ should issue.