California Court of Appeals, First District, Third Division
Francisco City & County Superior Court, No. MCN17010380
Honorable Garrett L. Wong Trial Judge:
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,
Adachi, Public Defender, Matt Gonzalez, Chief Attorney,
Dorothy Bischoff, Deputy Public Defender, for Respondent.
SIGGINS, P. J.
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.
January 2016, Sanchez was charged with robbery (Pen. Code,
§ 211), 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
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.
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
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.”
People moved to reinstate the re-filed complaint pursuant to
section 871.5. The superior court denied the motion. The
People argue the superior court erred when it concluded the
magistrate's dismissal could not ...