Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Sanchez

California Court of Appeals, First District, Third Division

October 21, 2019

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
ANGEL SANCHEZ, Defendant and Respondent.

          San Francisco City & County Superior Court, No. MCN17010380 Honorable Garrett L. Wong Trial Judge:

          Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Laurence K. Sullivan, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Bridget Billeter, Deputy Attorney General, for Appellant.

          Jeff Adachi, Public Defender, Matt Gonzalez, Chief Attorney, Dorothy Bischoff, Deputy Public Defender, for Respondent.

          SIGGINS, P. J.

         Defendant and appellant Angel Sanchez was charged with robbery, assault with a deadly weapon on a transit passenger, and receiving stolen property. He successfully moved to dismiss the complaint for prosecutorial vindictiveness. The People moved to reinstate the complaint under Penal Code section 871.5. The superior court denied reinstatement because the magistrate's dismissal was not grounded on one of the statutes enumerated in Penal Code section 871.5. We affirm.

         BACKGROUND

         In January 2016, Sanchez was charged with robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)[1], assault with a deadly weapon on a transit passenger (§ 245.2), and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) for acts against victim R.D. alleged to have occurred on a Muni bus on January 26, 2016. The People dismissed the complaint due to victim unavailability.

         In July 2016, Sanchez was charged with another robbery (§ 211), assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), and vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(1)) for acts against a different victim on a city street alleged to have occurred on July 20, 2016. He rejected all plea offers and proceeded to trial on the July charges. In preparation for jury trial, the prosecutor sought to locate R.D. from the January crime to testify as a witness under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) (uncharged acts). After several attempts, R.D. was eventually served with a subpoena to appear, and he testified at trial. The jury found Sanchez guilty of misdemeanor assault (§ 240) and felony vandalism (§594, subd. (b)(1)). The jury hung on the robbery count, and the trial court deferred sentencing until the prosecution decided whether it would retry the charge.

         In July 2017, approximately a week before sentencing, the prosecution re-filed the previously dismissed case against Sanchez alleged in the January 2016 complaint. The prosecution informed the trial court that it would dismiss the robbery count but proceed on the re-filed January 2016 case. Sanchez was sentenced for the assault and felony vandalism.[2]

         In August 2017, before the preliminary hearing, Sanchez moved to dismiss the re-filed complaint based upon the January 2016 incident for vindictive prosecution in violation of his constitutional right to due process. The magistrate judge found a presumption of vindictiveness and granted the motion. He explained the reasons for dismissal in a 19-page opinion which referenced no statutory grounds for the disposition. However, the court's minutes stated the case was dismissed “PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 1385 FOR REASONS STATED ON THE RECORD.”

         The People moved to reinstate the re-filed complaint pursuant to section 871.5. The superior court denied the motion. The People appeal.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Section 871.5

         The People argue the superior court erred when it concluded the magistrate's dismissal could not ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.