Opinion ID: 1180863
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction of the Shasta Superior Court

Text: As noted, the original indictment was filed in Shasta County. Thereafter, defendant notified the trial court that he would seek a change of venue. The prosecution expressed its belief that if the motion were granted the court should, pursuant to rule 842 of the California Rules of Court, contact the Administrative Office of the Courts to seek out an appropriate transferee court, [b]ut all legal motions would be held here in Shasta County. The court agreed. Thereafter, the venue motion was continued to the following week. The court stated, however, [w]e may as well confirm on the record the discussions we had in chambers concerning the convenience factors that would affect a motion for change of venue, in view of the court's rules that require that all further proceedings be had prior to trial in the county to which transfer would take place. I feel that there are substantial reasons why it would be prejudicial to both sides to move the matter prematurely, which would require traveling back and forth by parties and their counsel, which would be time-consuming and probably not lend itself to better handling of the matter. I will check with the Administrative Office of the Courts between now and next Monday and verify what the possibilities are.... Defendant thereafter filed his venue motion. At the hearing, the prosecution offered to stipulate that all pretrial motions would be heard in Shasta County. Defense counsel responded, [t]hat stipulation is acceptable to us. I have some question in my mind as to whether, if the court actually makes an order transferring venue to another court, whether it has jurisdiction in spite of that stipulation to continue the law and motion matters in this county. I know we have discussed this matter, and it is my desire and [ defendant's ] desire that law and motion, legal matters, be retained in this county. (Italics added.) The court explained, I believe, gentlemen, as I informed you in chambers, that this can be accomplished. I discussed it with representatives of the Administrative Office of the Courts, and apparently there is a good deal of flexibility. What I will do is take the motion under submission and technically grant it later if I have to in order to process law and motion matters. Otherwise we may be able to make the order subject to continuation of law and motion proceedings here. So the motion is taken under submission. I will notify the Judicial Council that I desire the transfer of the action, and see what other courts are available.... (1) A few days later (Sept. 29, 1978) another hearing was held. The court informed counsel of the various options and it was decided that Lake County would be the preferable alternative forum. The court stated, I will notify the Administrative Office of the Courts that I propose to transfer the matter to Lake County. And we will determine then by subsequent exploration whether there are any factors which we do not know of which make that undesirable. At least at this stage we will open direct contact with Lake County Superior Court and determine any limitations that they might have in trying the case which would affect our decision. And of course it is possible to come back and still make another choice if that investigation reveals factors which would militate against going there. Over seven months later, the prosecution asked when the matter would be transferred to Lake County. The court answered, Well, it is primarily up to you gentlemen. I rely on you gentlemen as to when the balance point is reached so it is more convenient for you and everybody else to be down there rather than up here.... The pretrial appellate court proceedings in defendant's case were not finalized for another 11 months  until March 1980. The court then asked counsel whether, in light of the delay, a new list of possible trial locations should be obtained from the Administrative Office of the Courts. Both defense counsel and the prosecution agreed that another location should be considered. In mid-March, it was decided that Yolo County would be the new trial location. In mid-April 1980, the court formally granted the motion and transferred the matter to Yolo County. Defendant argues his venue motion was granted on September 29, 1978. He insists the Shasta Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to rule on any matters after that date, and that all matters, orders or rulings thereafter in the Shasta or Yolo Superior Courts were void. Defendant's premise is faulty: the Shasta Superior Court did not grant the venue motion until mid-April 1980. Accordingly, we find defendant's claim meritless. (2) Defendant maintains, however, that the trial court was required to rule on the venue motion immediately. He cites Moore v. Powell (1977) 70 Cal. App.3d 583, 587 [138 Cal. Rptr. 914], for the proposition that the trial court lacked power to rule on any other issue prior to deciding the venue motion. Moore, however, is distinguishable because it involved civil change of venue under the Code of Civil Procedure, not criminal venue change pursuant to the Rules of Court. Rule 840 of the California Rules of Court provides that Rules 840 to 844, inclusive, shall govern the transfer of criminal actions or proceedings. Motions for change of venue pursuant to section 1033 fall within this rule. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 841.) Rules 840 through 844 are silent as to when a trial court must rule on a criminal venue motion; they provide simply that once the transfer is ordered, the clerk shall immediately make out and transmit to the court to which the action is transferred a certified copy of the order of transfer record, pleadings and proceedings in the action including the undertakings for the appearance of the defendant and of the witnesses. ( Id., rule 843.) We conclude the Rules of Court did not prohibit the trial court from taking the venue motion under submission and determining other pretrial motions. [8]