Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In Re Williams
Citations: 164 Cal. App. 3d 979; 211 Cal. Rptr. 32; 1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 1664Docket: A027414
Court: California Court of Appeal; February 21, 1985; California; State Appellate Court
A magistrate's refusal or failure to hold a defendant to answer on a count of a complaint is deemed a dismissal of that count under Penal Code section 871, which, in turn, triggers the bar on further prosecution for that offense under section 1387. In the case of Cedric Deshawn Williams, during a preliminary hearing on May 19, 1982, the court held him to answer for receiving stolen property but did not hold him for the burglary charge, stating, "There will be no holding as to Count 1." Subsequently, the district attorney filed an information charging both offenses on June 1, 1982. After a series of motions and hearings, the superior court granted a motion to dismiss the burglary charge on August 9, 1982, which constituted a termination of the action. The court's statement on May 19 also constituted a dismissal under section 871. Petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move for dismissal based on section 1387. The court agreed, confirming that the prior refusal to hold him for burglary barred further prosecution, as it qualified as a termination under the relevant sections of the Penal Code. Section 871 stipulates that if a magistrate finds no public offense committed or insufficient cause to believe the defendant guilty, the complaint must be dismissed, and the defendant discharged, with a signed endorsement by the magistrate. Despite its seemingly absolute language, the statute allows for dismissal of one count if evidence for others is sufficient, as established in case law such as Dunn v. Superior Court and Lee v. Superior Court. The People argue that a magistrate's statement indicating a lack of further holding does not equate to a dismissal under section 871; however, this interpretation is rejected. The statute aims to prevent prosecutorial harassment and forum shopping, which would be undermined if the prosecution could refile charges due to a lack of formal dismissal documentation. Consequently, a failure to hold also constitutes a termination of action under section 1387. Defense counsel's failure to move for dismissal under section 1387 is deemed ineffective assistance of counsel, leading to the granting of a habeas corpus petition and the setting aside of the probation order. The Supreme Court denied the respondent's petition for a hearing. The document references relevant case law and legislative history, emphasizing the established understanding of magistrate dismissal powers.