Opinion ID: 2252157
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reckless driving

Text: Appellant contends the court improperly reduced the reckless driving charge from a misdemeanor to an infraction. He is correct, although not for the reason he asserts. He contends the court acted improperly because it failed to obtain his consent to the reduction. In fact, as we discuss below, the court exceeded its jurisdiction in reducing the charge. With the consent of a defendant, a court may reduce certain specified misdemeanors to infractions. (Pen.Code § 17, subd. (d)(2).) The reducible misdemeanors are listed in Penal Code section 19.8, but reckless driving (Veh.Code § 23103) is not among them. Moreover, Vehicle Code section 40000.15 explicitly provides that reckless driving is a misdemeanor, and not an infraction. Since there is no legislative authority for reducing a reckless driving charge to an infraction, the court exceeded its jurisdiction in doing so. (Cf. People v. Beebe (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 927, 932, 265 Cal.Rptr. 242 [court exceeded jurisdiction in reducing `straight felony' to misdemeanor].) It is the function of the Legislature, not the trial judge, to define offenses and prescribe punishments. ( People v. Iniguez (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 75, 81, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 634, citing People v. Superior Court (Perez) (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 347, 355, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 107.) Since reckless driving as an infraction is a nonexistent crime, the court lacked authority to convict or sentence appellant for it. Accordingly, the reckless driving conviction must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial on this charge.