Ruling: Judges can't unilaterally downgrade felonies

A California Supreme Court warned trial court judges against unilaterally reducing wobbler offenses in an opinion issued Thursday.

The circumstances of the case were unusual. They involved a long-delayed criminal matter and a defendant who has already been released with time served.

However, the circumstances of the ruling suggest the court wanted to provide guidance to lower courts on so-called wobblers, offenses that can be charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor, depending on circumstances including a defendant's prior convictions. The unanimous court affirmed a lower court ruling, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero. People v. Superior Court of Ventura County, S281950 (Cal. S. Ct., filed Sept. 25, 2023).

"Here, it is clear the order reducing the charged felony to a misdemeanor was unauthorized," Guerrero wrote, citing People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 973. "Writ review of such an unauthorized order would therefore be warranted where the balance of interests weighs in favor of review."

Guerrero found the prosecutors could challenge a trial court's order reducing a felony charge to a misdemeanor before sentencing. But she also addressed the "unusual procedural circumstances" that led the court to take the case over the apparent objections of the Ventura County district attorney, who had challenged the trial court judge's decision.

"At the request of the prosecution, and notwithstanding the Court of Appeal's temporary stay, the trial court reinstated the felony charge against Mitchell," Guerrero added. "In subsequent proceedings, the prosecution moved to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor, thus agreeing to the very result the People challenged by the writ petition at issue here."

These circumstances led to some unusual exchanges when the court heard oral arguments on Oct. 9.

"You prevailed here," Justice Joshua P. Groban told Ventura County Deputy District Attorney Miriam R. Arichea. "You get the right to make an immediate appeal. ... Why do the people care?"

Arichea replied that Groban was raising a "hypothetical" in which the judge did not make an improper decision. She said there was harm in prosecutors not being able to immediately challenge the decision.

"It's the waste in judicial resources in litigating a charge that might have been erroneous," Arichea said. "If the people don't have even the opportunity to be heard, then the erroneous felony reduction is allowed to proceed."

Guerrero and her colleagues appeared to agree with Arichea's argument. The chief justice wrote, "The inability to appeal does not necessarily demonstrate that the Court of Appeal erred in granting writ relief. Even where the People cannot appeal, writ review is available 'when a trial court has acted in excess of its jurisdiction and the need for such review outweighs the risk of harassment of the accused,'" citing People v. Superior Court (Stanley) (1979) 24 Cal.3d 622, 626.

The defendant in the underlying case was Richard Allen Mitchell. In 2018, he was charged with felony resisting an officer and misdemeanor possession. He had a prior strike conviction for battery with serious bodily injury." Five years later, on the eve of a jury trial, the judge ordered the reduction and referred Mitchell to a veterans' court program.

Arguing for Mitchell as the real party in interest in the case, Deputy Public Defender William M. Quest noted the years of delays his client endured, partially because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Guerrero also appeared sympathetic to these arguments.

"Given the length of time the charges against Mitchell have been pending, the district attorney states he would be 'open' to an order barring further litigation of the charges against Mitchell," she wrote. "While such an order appears reasonable under the circumstances, the parties have not identified any mechanism for this court to order such relief. Upon receipt of the remittitur, the trial court should consider whether to dismiss the charges in the interest of justice."