People v. Hoffman

Opinion

ARONSON, J.

*

Michael Shane Hoffman was charged by information with transporting and possessing methamphetamine after his motion to suppress evidence was denied by the preliminary hearing magistrate. Hoffman eventually pleaded guilty to the charges in exchange for three years of formal probation. He now seeks review of the magistrate’s ruling. We conclude, however, Hoffman has waived his right to appeal by failing to renew his suppression motion before the trial judge. We therefore affirm the judgment.

[3]

In

People

v.

Lilienthal

(1978) 22 Cal.3d 891 [150 Cal.Rptr. 910, 587 P.2d 706], our Supreme Court held that a defendant must seek review of the magistrate’s suppression ruling in superior court “to preserve the point for review on appeal, for it would be wholly inappropriate to reverse a superior court’s judgment for error it did not commit and that was never called to its attention. [Fn. omitted.]”

(Id.

at p. 896.) Hoffman argues the

Lilienthal

holding is no longer applicable because of the recent unification of municipal and superior courts in Orange County. As a result, former municipal court judges became judges of the superior court, and although much of the work remains the same, the title of the judge has changed. Thus, according to Hoffman,

Lilienthal

does not foreclose his appeal because the suppression ruling he attacks was made by a superior court judge.

The identical issue was addressed in

People

v.

Hart

(1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 479 [86 Cal.Rptr.2d 762]. There the Court of Appeal continued to apply Lilienthal, finding significance in the distinct roles assigned to the preliminary hearing magistrate and the trial court.