Whittaker v. Superior Court

438 P.2d 358, 68 Cal. 2d 357, 66 Cal. Rptr. 710, 1968 Cal. LEXIS 169
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 18, 1968
DocketSac. 7820
StatusPublished
Cited by63 cases

This text of 438 P.2d 358 (Whittaker v. Superior Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Whittaker v. Superior Court, 438 P.2d 358, 68 Cal. 2d 357, 66 Cal. Rptr. 710, 1968 Cal. LEXIS 169 (Cal. 1968).

Opinion

SULLIVAN, J.

On December 21, 1966, petitioner Roger Whittaker was convicted by a jury in the Justice Court of the Redding Judicial District (Shasta County) of violating section 2141 of the Business and Professions Code, which provides in general that the practice of medicine without a valid, unrevoked physician’s certificate constitutes a misdemeanor. (See also Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 2135, 2137. 2426.) On the same date petitioner George C. Stevenson, M.D., was convicted in the same court of the same crime as an aider and abettor. (See Pen. Code, § 31.) The convictions arose out of an operation performed by Dr. Stevenson during which Whit-taker acted as a surgical technician.

From the judgments of conviction, each petitioner appealed to the Superior Court of Shasta County. (See Cal. Const., art. *360 VI, § 11; 1 Pen. Code, §§ 1466-1469; Cal. Rules of Court, rules 181-191.) After a hearing before the presiding judge of that court, sitting alone, the judgments were affirmed on April 17, 1967. A petition for certification by the superior court that transfer of said eases to the Court of Appeal appeared necessary, was denied April 28, 1967. (See Pen. Code, § 1471; Cal. Rules of Court, rules 62, 63.) Petitioners nevertheless appealed to the Court of Appeal which on June 20, 1967, on motion of the People, dismissed their appeals.

On June 27, 1967, petitioners filed in the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, a “Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Coram Nobis or in the Alternative a Writ of Mandamus’’ which alleged, insofar as is here relevant, that the failure of the Superior Court of Shasta County to convene a three-judge appellate department to hear their appeals constituted a violation of their rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as under comparable provisions of the California Constitution. On July 11 an order to show cause issued (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1069), and on December 28, 1967, the court issued a writ ordering that the Superior Court of Shasta County vacate its judgment on appeal and convene a three-judge appellate department of the superior court to hear petitioners’ appeal.

In view of the far-reaching effect of this decision, and of the necessity that the issues involved be determined by the higher courts at the earliest possible opportunity, we transferred the matter to this court on our own motion and without waiting for the decision to become final as to the Court of Appeal. (See Cal. Const., art. VI, §12; 1967 Judicial Council Report 77; Within, New Rules on Appeal, Part IV, Hearing and Determination of Appeal (1944) 17 So.Cal.L.Rev. 232, 267-268.)

The holding of the Court of Appeal was, in brief, that that portion of section 77 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides for a three-judge appellate department only in counties which have a municipal court 2 is violative of the equal *361 protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is therefore void. A proper consideration of this question requires some understanding of California court structure, a matter which we now proceed to consider in brief outline.

*362 In- this state the principal trial court, having unlimited monetary and subject matter jurisdiction except where jurisdiction is expressly given courts of limited jurisdiction, is the superior court. “In each county there is a superior court of one or more judges.” (Cal. Const., art. VI, §4.)

In addition, there are courts of limited jurisdiction 3 in each county. “Each county shall be divided into municipal court and justice court districts as provided by statute, but a city may not be divided into more than one district. . . . There shall be a municipal court in each district of more than 40,000 residents and a justice court in each district of 40,000 residents or less.” (Cal. Const., art. VI, §5.) The division of counties into judicial districts is, by statute, a function of the respective boards of supervisors of the several counties. (See Gov. Code, § 71040 et seq.) 4

The state Constitution provides that the “Superior courts have appellate jurisdiction in causes prescribed by statute that arise in municipal and justice courts in their counties.” (Italics added.) (Cal. Const., art. VI, §11.) Statutory imple *363 mentation 5 of this provision manifests differences in the scope and content of such appellate jurisdiction according to (1) whether there is an appellate department of the superior court in the county; (2) whether the appeal is from a municipal or justice court; (3) whether the appeal, if from a justice court, involves questions of fact; and (4) whether the judgment appealed from is civil or criminal.

In counties where there are municipal courts, and where there is therefore an appellate department of the superior court (see fn. 2, ante), all appeals involving only questions of law, whether such appeals be from municipal courts or justice courts and whether they be in civil or criminal cases, are heard in the appellate department. (Code Civ. Proc., §§77, subd. (g), 983, subd. (a) Pen. Code, § 1469 ; 6 see also People *364 v. Allenthorp (1966) 64 Cal.2d 679, 682 [51 Cal.Rptr. 244, 414 P.2d 372] ; Thomasian v. Superior Court (1953) 122 Cal. App.2d 322, 331-333 [265 P.2d 165] ; Unemployment etc. Com. v. St. Francis etc. Assn. (1943) 58 Cal.App.2d 271, 274-275 [137 P.2d 64].) When, however, a civil appeal from a justice court in such a county involves questions of fact or questions of both law and fact, or when the appeal is from a justice or municipal court in such a county sitting as a small claims court, there must be a trial de novo before a one-judge superior court. (Code Civ. Proe., §§77, subd. (g), 983, subd. (b), 117j.) 7 Criminal appeals from municipal or justice courts may raise only questions of law (Pen. Code, § 1469 ; 8 see also People v. Garrigan (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d Supp. 854, 856 [289 P.2d 892]) so that such appeals in counties having municipal courts are heard by the appellate department.

In counties where there are no municipal courts, and where there is therefore no appellate department of the superior court,, all appeals both civil and criminal from the justice courts involving

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Johnson v. Appellate Division of Superior Court
230 Cal. App. 4th 825 (California Court of Appeal, 2014)
Law School Admission Council v. California
California Court of Appeal, 2014
Law School Admission Council, Inc. v. State
222 Cal. App. 4th 1265 (California Court of Appeal, 2014)
Opinion No. (1998)
California Attorney General Reports, 1998
People v. Edwards
17 Cal. App. 4th 1248 (California Court of Appeal, 1993)
Untitled California Attorney General Opinion
California Attorney General Reports, 1990
People v. Superior Court
195 Cal. App. 3d 1209 (California Court of Appeal, 1987)
Freitag v. Gohr
651 P.2d 356 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1982)
City of Klamath Falls v. Winters
619 P.2d 217 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1980)
People v. Schiering
92 Cal. App. 3d 429 (California Court of Appeal, 1979)
Rees v. Department of Real Estate
76 Cal. App. 3d 286 (California Court of Appeal, 1977)
McGlothlen v. Department of Motor Vehicles
71 Cal. App. 3d 1005 (California Court of Appeal, 1977)
Solberg v. Superior Court
561 P.2d 1148 (California Supreme Court, 1977)
Subriar v. City of Bakersfield
59 Cal. App. 3d 175 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
Lompoc Federation of Teachers Local 3151 v. Lompoc Unified School District
58 Cal. App. 3d 701 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
Philippart v. Hotchkiss Tract Reclamation District 799
54 Cal. App. 3d 797 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
State v. Boone
543 P.2d 945 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1975)
Dvorin v. Appellate Department
542 P.2d 1363 (California Supreme Court, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
438 P.2d 358, 68 Cal. 2d 357, 66 Cal. Rptr. 710, 1968 Cal. LEXIS 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whittaker-v-superior-court-cal-1968.