Opinion ID: 2635216
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the district court did have jurisdiction over felony charges

Text: ¶ 22 We now turn to whether the district court had jurisdiction over the felony charges filed after the remittitur had been issued prematurely. We hold that it did. ¶ 23 Once the circuit court dismissed the misdemeanor charges, there were no pending charges against Norris. Although the city had sought reversal of that order, until the court of appeals reinstated the charges, the county was free to bring the felony charges against Norris in the district court as a new action. The timing and the propriety of remittitur has no legal impact on the filing of the felony charges in this instance. Therefore, the district court had proper jurisdiction to receive and resolve the new charges under its constitutional grant of general jurisdiction. [15]