Opinion
VOGEL (Miriam A.), J.
In 1994, William L. Lynch was charged with eight counts of lewd conduct with a child, all of which allegedly occurred [315] between 1965 and 1972. Lynch demurred, contending the three-year statute of limitations in effect at the time of the charged offenses had long since expired, and that it could not be revived by a 1994 amendment extending the period of limitations to one year from the date the charged offenses were first reported to a law enforcement agency. The demurrer was overruled but Lynch’s petition for a writ of mandate was granted by Division Four of our court on the ground that the attempted extension of the expired period of limitations violated Lynch’s constitutional protection from the ex post facto application of a new law. The Supreme Court denied review. In 1997, the Legislature again amended the statute of limitations. The day after the effective date of the amendment, Lynch was charged once again with the same offenses dismissed by Division Four. Lynch demurred, successfully, and the superior court thereafter denied the People’s motion for an order directing the magistrate to reinstate the complaint. The People now appeal, contending the 1997 amendment “overrules” Division Four’s decision. We disagree.
We express no opinion about the validity of the 1997 amendment as it might be applied to other persons. As we will explain, however, the 1997 amendment—as applied to Lynch—constitutes an unconstitutional (and therefore impermissible) effort by the Legislature to readjudicate a controversy that has been litigated in our courts and resolved by a final judicial judgment.
Facts
By an information filed on March 21, 1994, Lynch was charged with eight counts of violating subdivision (a) of Penal Code section 2881 on specified dates between 1965 and 1972, with an allegation that the offenses were first reported to law enforcement in July 1993, within one year prior to the filing of the felony complaint. At the time the charged offenses were allegedly committed, the applicable statute of limitations was three years (former § 800), which expired no later than August 1975.2 Effective January 1, 1994, the limitations period was extended to one year from the date a person of any [316] age reported to a law enforcement agency that he or she was a victim of specified sex offenses (including section 288) while under the age of eighteen years. (§ 803, subd. (g).)3
[317] Lynch demurred to the information, asserting that any revival or extension of the original limitations period after it expired in 1975 would constitute a constitutionally impermissible ex post facto application of the law. The trial court overruled the demurrer. Lynch then filed a petition for a writ of mandate, which was granted by Division Four of our court for two separate and independent reasons. First, Division Four held that, as applied to Lynch, section 803, subdivision (g), operated to “extend the already expired three-year limitations period applicable to the charged offenses. This is an ex post facto violation.” (Lynch v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1227 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 414].) Second, Division Four held that subdivision (c)(1) of section 805.5 barred application of subdivision (g) of section 803 to Lynch.4 (Lynch v. Superior Court, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1228.) The Supreme Court denied review, and the charges against Lynch were dismissed. (Id. at p. 1229.)5 The dismissal became final on May 25, 1995. (Rule 24, Cal. Rules of Court.)
Effective June 30, 1997, the Legislature again amended subdivision (g) of section 803.6 The next day (on July 1), the People filed a new complaint charging Lynch with the same previously dismissed violations of section 288, subdivision (a). Lynch demurred, and the magistrate sustained the demurrer. The People moved in superior court for reinstatement of the complaint (§ 871.5). That motion was denied, and the People now appeal.
[318] Discussion
As our Supreme Court explained in Superior Court v. County of Mendocino (1996) 13 Cal.4th 45, 53-54 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 837, 913 P.2d 1046], the Legislature may put reasonable restrictions upon the constitutional functions of the courts—provided that such legislatively imposed restrictions do not defeat or materially impair the exercise of the courts’ functions. But one of the things the Legislature cannot do is to “undertake to readjudicate controversies that have been litigated in the courts and resolved by final judicial judgment.” (Id. at p. 53; see also Mandel v. Myers (1981) 29 [319] Cal.3d 531, 546-549 [174 Cal.Rptr. 841, 629 P.2d 935].) This is so because the fundamental separation of powers doctrine embodied in article III, section 3 of the California Constitution forbids any such legislative usurpation of traditional judicial authority by providing that “[t]he powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by [the California] Constitution.”
“Our Constitution assigns the resolution of such specific controversies to the judicial branch of government (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 1) and provides the Legislature with no authority to set itself above the judiciary by discarding the outcome or readjudicating the merits of particular judicial proceedings. As [our Supreme Court] emphasized more than a century ago in the case of Pryor v. Downey (1875) 50 Cal. 388, 405: ‘[H]ad the Legislature gone one step further and, by special enactment. . . commanded the courts which had rendered a judgment in favor of a plaintiff ... to set it aside and to enter a judgment for the defendant, such arbitrary attempt would, at once, have been recognized as an abuse not to be tolerated under our free constitution of government.’ ” (Mandel v. Myers, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 547.)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Opinion
VOGEL (Miriam A.), J.
In 1994, William L. Lynch was charged with eight counts of lewd conduct with a child, all of which allegedly occurred [315] between 1965 and 1972. Lynch demurred, contending the three-year statute of limitations in effect at the time of the charged offenses had long since expired, and that it could not be revived by a 1994 amendment extending the period of limitations to one year from the date the charged offenses were first reported to a law enforcement agency. The demurrer was overruled but Lynch’s petition for a writ of mandate was granted by Division Four of our court on the ground that the attempted extension of the expired period of limitations violated Lynch’s constitutional protection from the ex post facto application of a new law. The Supreme Court denied review. In 1997, the Legislature again amended the statute of limitations. The day after the effective date of the amendment, Lynch was charged once again with the same offenses dismissed by Division Four. Lynch demurred, successfully, and the superior court thereafter denied the People’s motion for an order directing the magistrate to reinstate the complaint. The People now appeal, contending the 1997 amendment “overrules” Division Four’s decision. We disagree.
We express no opinion about the validity of the 1997 amendment as it might be applied to other persons. As we will explain, however, the 1997 amendment—as applied to Lynch—constitutes an unconstitutional (and therefore impermissible) effort by the Legislature to readjudicate a controversy that has been litigated in our courts and resolved by a final judicial judgment.
Facts
By an information filed on March 21, 1994, Lynch was charged with eight counts of violating subdivision (a) of Penal Code section 2881 on specified dates between 1965 and 1972, with an allegation that the offenses were first reported to law enforcement in July 1993, within one year prior to the filing of the felony complaint. At the time the charged offenses were allegedly committed, the applicable statute of limitations was three years (former § 800), which expired no later than August 1975.2 Effective January 1, 1994, the limitations period was extended to one year from the date a person of any [316] age reported to a law enforcement agency that he or she was a victim of specified sex offenses (including section 288) while under the age of eighteen years. (§ 803, subd. (g).)3
[317] Lynch demurred to the information, asserting that any revival or extension of the original limitations period after it expired in 1975 would constitute a constitutionally impermissible ex post facto application of the law. The trial court overruled the demurrer. Lynch then filed a petition for a writ of mandate, which was granted by Division Four of our court for two separate and independent reasons. First, Division Four held that, as applied to Lynch, section 803, subdivision (g), operated to “extend the already expired three-year limitations period applicable to the charged offenses. This is an ex post facto violation.” (Lynch v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1227 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 414].) Second, Division Four held that subdivision (c)(1) of section 805.5 barred application of subdivision (g) of section 803 to Lynch.4 (Lynch v. Superior Court, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1228.) The Supreme Court denied review, and the charges against Lynch were dismissed. (Id. at p. 1229.)5 The dismissal became final on May 25, 1995. (Rule 24, Cal. Rules of Court.)
Effective June 30, 1997, the Legislature again amended subdivision (g) of section 803.6 The next day (on July 1), the People filed a new complaint charging Lynch with the same previously dismissed violations of section 288, subdivision (a). Lynch demurred, and the magistrate sustained the demurrer. The People moved in superior court for reinstatement of the complaint (§ 871.5). That motion was denied, and the People now appeal.
[318] Discussion
As our Supreme Court explained in Superior Court v. County of Mendocino (1996) 13 Cal.4th 45, 53-54 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 837, 913 P.2d 1046], the Legislature may put reasonable restrictions upon the constitutional functions of the courts—provided that such legislatively imposed restrictions do not defeat or materially impair the exercise of the courts’ functions. But one of the things the Legislature cannot do is to “undertake to readjudicate controversies that have been litigated in the courts and resolved by final judicial judgment.” (Id. at p. 53; see also Mandel v. Myers (1981) 29 [319] Cal.3d 531, 546-549 [174 Cal.Rptr. 841, 629 P.2d 935].) This is so because the fundamental separation of powers doctrine embodied in article III, section 3 of the California Constitution forbids any such legislative usurpation of traditional judicial authority by providing that “[t]he powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by [the California] Constitution.”
“Our Constitution assigns the resolution of such specific controversies to the judicial branch of government (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 1) and provides the Legislature with no authority to set itself above the judiciary by discarding the outcome or readjudicating the merits of particular judicial proceedings. As [our Supreme Court] emphasized more than a century ago in the case of Pryor v. Downey (1875) 50 Cal. 388, 405: ‘[H]ad the Legislature gone one step further and, by special enactment. . . commanded the courts which had rendered a judgment in favor of a plaintiff ... to set it aside and to enter a judgment for the defendant, such arbitrary attempt would, at once, have been recognized as an abuse not to be tolerated under our free constitution of government.’ ” (Mandel v. Myers, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 547.)
The same can be said of this case, and the People’s arguments to the contrary do no more than demonstrate an unwillingness to recognize the further prosecution of Lynch for what it is—a legislative command to the trial and appellate courts to set aside the judgment of dismissal entered in favor of Lynch when Division Four’s decision became final. Such a command is beyond the power of the Legislature. However broad the Legislature’s constitutional power may be, it does not include the right to review and readjudicate final court judgments on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, any other conclusion would “completely deprive court judgments of the respect and deference which the Constitution contemplates each branch of government [would] accord to final actions within the jurisdiction of a coequal branch, and would repose in the Legislature a combination of powers that the constitutional draftsmen specifically intended to forestall.” (Mandel v. Myers, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 549; see also Oppenheimer v. Ashburn (1959) 173 Cal.App.2d 624, 631 [343 P.2d 931] [“the doctrine of judicial supremacy as to the constitutionality of acts of the Legislature is basic to our concept of government”].)
In short, whatever power the Legislature may have to reject judicial decisions with which it disagrees and to make new laws to prospectively abrogate the effect of those decisions (Mendly v. County of Los Angeles (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1212 [28 Cal.Rptr.2d 822]; Serrano v. Priest (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 188, 200-201 [182 Cal.Rptr. 387]; Matter of Coburn [320] (1913) 165 Cal. 202, 210 [131 P. 352]), the Legislature does not have the power to readjudicate Division Four’s final decision in Lynch v. Superior Court, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th 1223, as that decision affects Lynch. Since the People concede that the charges before us on this appeal are the very same charges dismissed by Division Four in Lynch v. Superior Court, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th 1223, we do not reach the “ex post facto” or “law of the case” issues discussed in the People’s briefs, leaving those issues for another day and another defendant.
Disposition
The judgment (order) is affirmed.
Spencer, P. J., and Dunn, J.,