Kanovitz v. Bloodgood

Opinion

ROTH, P. J.

Appellant, a state certified official court reporter, raises a single issue on the basis of uncontroverted facts: Is the provision of Penal Code, section 869 requiring a court reporter to furnish a copy of a felony preliminary hearing “without charge” to the county valid and enforceable?

In the case at bench, appellant reported and caused to be transcribed the record of a preliminary hearing held in the municipal court; certified and delivered the record and copies thereof in a timely and lawful manner; and then presented the Auditor-Controller of Los Angeles County with an affidavit which included charges for the single copy delivered to the county. The auditor-controller authorized compensation in the amount of $28 for two copies and disallowed a claim of $33.60 which had been made on the basis of three copies; appellant brought a writ of mandate in the superior court to which respondents (the Auditor-Controller and Treasurer of Los Angeles County) entered a demurrer which was granted without leave to amend. This appeal followed.

[207]

Appellant’s argument is predicated on the theory, that Penal Code, section 869 is unconstitutional . . to the extent that it selects only court reporters performing felony preliminary services for a species of taxation in that only a court reporter performing felony preliminary services is compelled to furnish one copy of the transcript without charge to the county ...” and that this procedure violates the equal protection clause of the federal and state Constitutions.

1

Appellant buttresses his argument with a host of decisions which have proscribed unequal treatment in the economic field (e.g.,

Sail’er Inn, Inc.

v.

Kirby,

5 Cal.3d 1 [95 Cal. Rptr. 329, 485 P.2d 529]), contending that “in no other court reporting service is the reporter required to subsidize the court or the litigants.”

It is settled that “if the selection or classification is neither capricious nor arbitrary, and rests upon some reasonable consideration of difference or policy, there is no denial of equal protection' of the law”