Opinion ID: 1247774
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Court's Jurisdiction to Decide Penalty.

Text: (1) Defendant contends that under the 1977 death penalty law the court was without jurisdiction to decide the issue of penalty when, as here, a jury had decided the issue of guilt. Except as provided otherwise by statute, Superior courts have original [subject matter] jurisdiction in all causes, criminal as well as civil. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 10.) Inherent in subject matter jurisdiction is the power to inquire into the facts, to apply the law and to declare the punishment. ( Burris v. Superior Court (1974) 43 Cal. App.3d 530, 537 [117 Cal. Rptr. 898]; accord, People v. Brown (1970) 10 Cal. App.3d 169, 175 [88 Cal. Rptr. 801], citing authorities.) We find nothing in the 1977 death penalty law that denies the court power to decide the issue of penalty in a case in which a jury has decided the issue of guilt. In arguing to the contrary defendant relies on former section 190.4, which provided in relevant part as follows. (b) If defendant was convicted by the court sitting without a jury, the trier of fact at the penalty hearing shall be a jury unless a jury is waived by the defendant and the people, in which case the trier of fact shall be the court. If the defendant was convicted by a plea of guilty, the trier of fact shall be a jury unless a jury is waived by the defendant and the people. .... .... .... .... .... (c) If the trier of fact which convicted the defendant of a crime for which he may be subjected to the death penalty was a jury, the same jury shall consider any plea of not guilty by reason of insanity pursuant to [Penal Code] Section 1026, the truth of any special circumstances which may be alleged, and the penalty to be applied, unless for good cause shown the court discharges that jury in which case a new jury shall be drawn. The court shall state facts in support of the finding of good cause upon the record and cause them to be entered into the minutes. (Stats. 1977, ch. 316, § 12, p. 1261.) We do not read the foregoing provisions to deny the court jurisdiction to decide the issue of penalty when a jury has decided the issue of guilt. Subdivision (b) was evidently intended to grant defendants who had waived jury trial on the issue of guilt the right to a penalty determination by a jury. Subdivision (c), in turn, was evidently intended to provide that when guilt had been determined by a jury, the same jury should decide the remaining issues unless discharged for good cause, i.e., to declare that defendants who had been convicted by a jury were not entitled to have a different jury determine the issues of special circumstance, sanity, or penalty. Whether read separately or together, these provisions patently do not affect the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. Consequently, the court had jurisdiction to determine the issue of penalty in defendant's case.