Court Opinion

ID: 9730744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:22:32.700808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:09.008993
License: Public Domain

JEFFERSON (Bernard), J. —I dissent.
The majority dismisses the petitions on the ground that petitioners failed to comply with the requirements of Penal Code section 1510. It is the view of the majority that petitioners failed to make motions pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 within the 60-day time requirement following their arraignments. The 60-day time limitation is required by Penal Code section 1510 to qualify defendants for a pretrial appellate review of trial court orders denying motions made pursuant to Penal Code sections 995 or 1538.5.
The majority reaches its result by construing the proceedings on arraignment of petitioners on August 19, 1976, as not involving the making of any motions by petitioners. In my view, this is an unjustifiably narrow interpretation of the words spoken at the arraignment of petitioners. The majority’s holding also results in an erroneous construction of Penal Code section 1510.
Section 1510 was added to the Penal Code in 1971. (See Stats., 1971, ch. 944, § 1, p. 1852.) Section 1510 does not define what is meant by the phrase, “if the motion was made by the defendant in the trial court,” within the time limit specified. The concept of any motion involves three elements: 1. The motion itself; 2. Notice to the adversary; and 3. The hearing on the motion and the court’s ruling thereon. Section 1510 does not prescribe what the motion should contain or whether the motion is to be made orally or in writing. The section does not set forth that certain magic words must be used to constitute the making of a motion to secure relief pursuant to Penal Code section 995 or 1538.5. Neither does section 1510 set forth any requirements as to notice to the prosecution. Neither does it specify any requirements as to when the trial court shall conduct a hearing on the motion.
*736Since Penal Code section 1510 does not specify any requirement that a motion made pursuant to section 1538.5 of the Penal Code shall be in writing, I would construe the section as permitting a defendant to make an oral motion. The only requirement that I read into section 1510 is that a defendant shall make such an oral motion within 60 days following his arraignment on the information or indictment. Once he has made such an oral motion within that time limit, he has satisfied all requirements for a pretrial appellate review of the trial court’s denial of the motion, even though the evidence desired to be suppressed, the grounds in support of the motion, the notice to the prosecution, and the hearing and ruling on the motion are made more than 60 days following the defendant’s arraignment.
The majority construes Penal Code section 1510 as requiring that the evidence sought to be suppressed and the grounds supporting the motion be set forth before it can be said that “the motion was made by the defendant in the trial court not later than ... 60 days following defendant’s arraignment on the information or indictment. ...” I do not think that section 1510 should be given this narrow and technical construction. As long as a statement of the evidence sought to be suppressed and the grounds in support of the motion are made known to the court and the prosecution and the hearing is held, all prior to trial, the requirements of section 1510 should be deemed satisfied. The motion has been made within the 60-day period following arraignment, even though the additional details pertaining to the motion are not made known until after the 60-day period.
If the Legislature had intended by Penal Code section 1510 that the details of a motion, made pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, should set forth the matters required by the majority in order for a defendant to secure a pretrial appellate review of the trial court’s order of denial, it would have so provided in the section. The Legislature has indicated quite clearly in other sections of the Penal Code when it desired that a motion should contain, and conform to, certain details. Thus, Penal Code section 1201.5 provides as follows: “Any motions made subsequent to judgment must be made only upon written notice served upon the prosecution at least three days prior to the date of hearing thereon. No affidavit or other writing shall be presented or considered in support thereof unless a copy of the same has been duly served upon the prosecution at least three days prior to a hearing thereon. Any appeal from an order entered upon a motion made other than as herein provided, must be dismissed by the court.”
*737The difference between the provisions of section 1510 and section 1201.5 of the Penal Code indicates rather persuasively a difference in legislative intent which permits, under section 1510, an oral motion with no requirements that the details of the motion, the grounds, time of notice to the prosecution or time of hearing be set forth simultaneously with the making of the motion.
I would construe the oral proceedings at the arraignment of petitioners on August 19, 1976, as constituting valid motions within the meaning of Penal Code section 1510. The statement by petitioner Fabricant, “[f]or the record, I would like to reserve a 995 and 1538.5,” and the statement of petitioner Smith’s counsel, “[t]hat will be noticed also on behalf of Mr. Smith,” should be interpreted as constituting a motion under Penal Code sections 995 and 1538.5 to satisfy the requirement of section 1510 of the Penal Code.
I find no ambiguity, doubt or indecision in the words used by petitioners at their arraignment. Although the majority describes the petitioners’ words as simply a “cryptic statement,” I do not construe Penal Code section 1510 as requiring anything more for purposes of laying a foundation for a pretrial appellate review of a subsequent order denying petitioners relief under Penal Code section 1538.5. I do not believe we should curb pretrial appellate review of trial court orders denying defendants’ motions made pursuant to Penal Code sections 995 or 1538.5 by making a narrow construction of Penal Code section 1510.1 read nothing in the Sirhan (7 Cal.3d 710 [102 Cal.Rptr. 385, 497 P.2d 1121]) or De Santiago (71 Cal.2d 18 [76 Cal.Rptr. 809, 453 P.2d 353]) cases that mandates the narrow construction which the majority places upon Penal Code section 1510.
I would not dismiss the petitions, but, on the contraiy, entertain a review on the merits.
Petitioners’ applications for a hearing by the Supreme Court were denied February 10, 1978.