People v. McNorton

110 Cal.Rptr.2d 930 (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

Sandra Lynn McNORTON, Defendant and Respondent.

No. BR 41036. Appellate Division, Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

June 13, 2001. [931] Steve Cooley, District Attorney of Los Angeles County, Patrick D. Moran, Juliet Schmidt, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Bruce A. Hoffman, Alternate Public Defender of Los Angeles County, Felicia Kahn Grant, Deputy Alternate Public Defender, for Defendant and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT

McKAY, J.

On April 4, 2000, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office (hereinafter appellant) filed a three-count misdemeanor complaint against Sandra Lynn McNorton (hereinafter respondent). The complaint alleged violations of the following sections of the Vehicle Code: count 1, section 23152, subdivision (a), driving a vehicle under the influence of an alcoholic beverage; count 2, section 23152, subdivision (b), driving a vehicle with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher; and count 3, section 16028, subdivision (b), failing to provide proof of financial responsibility. On May 11, 2000, the court appointed counsel to represent respondent and advised respondent of the charges, respondent entered a not guilty plea, and the matter was set for pretrial proceedings. On September 26, 2000, the trial court called the case for jury trial, and a panel of 35 jurors was sworn for voir dire. Prior to the jury being selected and sworn to hear the matter, counsel for respondent made an oral motion to exclude the statement made by respondent at the time of her arrest that she was the person driving the vehicle. When the trial court granted respondent's motion, appellant advised the court that without the statement they were unable to proceed. Respondent then made a motion to dismiss the complaint which the trial court granted.

Appellant timely appeals, pursuant to Penal Code section 1466, subdivision (1)(B), the order dismissing the complaint on the ground that the trial court erred in its finding that the statement was inadmissible because the facts did not establish the corpus delicti of driving under the influence of alcohol. Respondent challenges appellant's right to seek appellate review of the pretrial ruling. We conclude, as explained below, that the trial court's order dismissing the complaint was erroneous, and appellant may appeal the dismissal pursuant to Penal Code section 1466, subdivision (1)(B).