Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Misdemeanor Appeals since the abolition of Municipal Courts in California

We all know that since 2001, all counties in CA have consolidated their municipal and justice courts into single ''superior courts''. Problem is; CA law still makes reference to differing appeals procedures when appealing a misdemeanor conviction from either a municipal court or a superior court. Why the reference to muni courts when they no longer exist? Further, how can a superior court propose to review its own judgments, when every other court must send appeals of its own judgments to a highter court? So then; if one is appealing a misdemeanor conviction from a superior court, does that appeal now go to the appellate division of the same court? Or should it be forwarded to the court of appeals? Funny thing is, applicable law is contradictory and therefore unclear, most court clerks cannot even answer this question, and even websites run by the state of CA offer conflicting information (!) So who is right, what is the final answer, and where is it clarified in CA law??? Additionally, how can a consolidated superior court purport to remain divided into muni and justice divisions, if only to provide for questionable ''in-house'' appeals, when those lower divisions legally no longer exist?


Asked on 11/17/04, 3:39 pm

2 Answers from Attorneys

OCEAN BEACH ASSOCIATES OCEAN BEACH ASSOCIATES

Re: Misdemeanor Appeals since the abolition of Municipal Courts in California

If you wish to appeal a misdemeanor conviction, have it reduced to an infraction or have it expunged, the change in the name of the court will not hinder it. Call me directly at (619) 222-3504.

Read more
Answered on 11/19/04, 7:38 pm
Edward Hoffman Law Offices of Edward A. Hoffman

Re: Misdemeanor Appeals since the abolition of Municipal Courts in California

What used to be two court systems have been combined into one, but this was done primarily to save on administrative costs and to make the distribution of caseloads among judges more even. (In some counties, the judges of one court had substantially higher workloads than those of the other court.)

How the courts are administered has changed, but what they do has not. Minor offenses are still tried under the rules which used to govern municipal courts, while major offenses are tried under the superior court rules.

On the civil side there is an analogous process. The superior courts still have limited jurisdiction civil cases, which can seek no more than $25,000 and which formerly would have gone to the municipal court. They also have unlimited jurisdiction cases, which are the ones that formerly would have gone to the superior court.

In all but the most sparsely populated counties, some judges handle only the minor crimes and others the major crimes. There are also some judges who hear limited jurisdiction cases while others handle the unlimited cases.

When a defendant wants to appeal from a case which was handled under the old municipal court rules, he appeals to the appellate department of the superior court. Although this branch is part of the same court whose decisions it is reviewing, it has the authority to reverse the decisions it reviews, and the judges who have been reversed must honor those decisions.

If the appellate department were converted into a separate court the process would look different but it would still work the same way. However, there would be additional administrative costs and the superior courts would have less leeway to distribute the workload evenly. These, of course, are the same problems which led to consolidation in the first place. A state which recently combined two courts in order to address these problems is unlikely to split an existing court and thereby re-create them.

Read more
Answered on 11/19/04, 3:01 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Criminal Law questions and answers in California