Stenback v. Municipal Court

California Court of Appeal Apr 17, 1969 No. Civ. 26122Published

Before: Christian

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A defendant may challenge the constitutional validity of uncharged prior drunk driving convictions at the time of arraignment for judgment, rather than through a pretrial motion to strike. The trial court has jurisdiction to determine the validity of such priors at that stage to prevent the Department of Motor Vehicles from relying on invalid convictions for license suspension.

Issues

Whether a municipal court has jurisdiction to hear a pretrial motion to strike uncharged prior drunk driving convictions.
Whether a defendant is denied the opportunity to challenge the validity of uncharged prior convictions if a pretrial motion is denied.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the trial court may then set a hearing to determine the validity of the prior; the time for pronouncing judgment maybe extended for this purpose”

“a challenge to the validity of a prior conviction under section 23102 may be offered at the arraignment for judgment”

“the department may not suspend or revoke a license where the trial court has held that the prior convictions upon which suspension or revocation would be based are invalid”

CHRISTIAN, J.

William Stenback and George Layton appeal from a judgment of the Santa Clara Superior Court denying their petition for a writ of mandamus. Appellants have been separately charged with unrelated violations of Vehicle Code section 23102 (drunk driving); no prior convictions were alleged in either complaint, although each appellant had previously suffered a conviction for drunk driving. Each moved in the municipal court to strike his prior conviction on the ground that it depended on a guilty plea made without counsel, in violation of the United States Constitution. The motions were denied and appellants jointly petitioned the superior court for mandamus directing the municipal court to hear the motions to strike; their cases are not otherwise related. In denying their petition, the superior court upheld the municipal judge’s determination that he had no jurisdiction to determine the validity of prior convictions not charged in the complaints before him. This appeal followed.

Section 23102, subdivision (a), of the Vehicle Code makes a first offense of drunk driving punishable by fine or imprisonment. A person convicted under this section for a second time within seven years is subject to a mandatory term in jail. Section 13209 of the Vehicle Code provides that the court “shall obtain’’ a defendant’s record of prior convictions from the Department of Motor Vehicles before sentencing upon a conviction of section 23102. The statute further provides that the Department of Motor Vehicles “shall furnish” such a record to the court upon request.

In addition to any court-imposed punishment, the Department of Motor Vehicles is required to suspend or revoke driving privileges of a defendant for six months upon his.first conviction of drunk driving unless the trial court recommends

[30]

to the contrary, for one year upon a second conviction of drunk driving within seven years, and for three years upon a third conviction of drunk driving within ten years (Veh. Code, § 13352). The Department of Motor Vehicles may suspend or revoke a license where it has a record of the prior convictions, even though the prior convictions are not charged and are not proven in the trial court.

(Cook

Stenback v. Municipal Court

AI Brief

CHRISTIAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief