County of Sonoma v. City of Santa Rosa
Before: Haynes
Synopsis
Municipal Corporations—Violations of City Ordinances and State Daws—Place of Imprisonment—Construction op Charter of Santa Rosa.—Under the charter of the city of Santa Rosa, persons found guilty of violating city ordinances should be committed to the city prison, and those found guilty of violation of the criminal laws of the state, where imprisonment is ordered, should be committed to the county jail.
Id.—Expense of Local Government—Statutory Construction.—It is the policy of our frame of government to localize as far as can be reasonably done, not only the power, but the expense, of government, so that the expense of the county government should be borne by the whole county, and the expense of city government by the city; and if the language of a municipal charter is doubtful, or capable of different interpretations, it ought to be read in the light of our frame of government, and construed in harmony therewith, so as to require that the expense of city government should be borne by the city, and no part of it by the county at large.
Id.—Liability of City for Committing Prisoners to Coonty Jail.— A city is liable to the county for hoard of prisoners committed to the county jail by the city recorder, for violations of the ordinances of the city.
Id.—Effect of Illegal Commitment—Competent Authority—Duty of Sheriff—Recovery by County.—Although commitments of prisoners to the county jail by the recorder for violations of city ordinances are illegal, yet they are made by competent authority, within the meaning of section 1611 of the Penal Code, and it is the duty of the sheriff to receive them, and to provide them with necessary food, to be paid out of the county treasury; and the county having borne the expense, which, under the law, should have been borne by the city, is entitled to recover the same from the city.
Id.—Imprisonment at Request of City—Implied Promise.—A commitment to the county jail by the judicial officer of the city, though erroneous, has the. force of a request, and the expense of enforcing its ordinances being imposed upon the city by law, a promise to pay therefor is implied.
Haynes, C. This is an action brought by the county of Sonoma against the city of Santa Rosa to recover three hundred and seventy-one dollars and seventy cents, alleged to have been paid by the county to the sheriff for boarding prisoners committed to the county jail by the city recorder for violations of the ordinances of the city.
A general demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and this appeal is from a judgment entered thereon against the plaintiff.
The respondent, in support of its demurrer, contends that under the city charter it has the right to commit to the county jail all persons found guilty in the recorder’s court of violations of the city ordinances, and that the county is compelled to support such prisoners at its own expense, and that the city is therefore not liable.
The charter gives the recorder a dual jurisdiction: 1. The same jurisdiction over crimes and offenses committed against the state law, within the city limits, as is conferred on justices of the peace, and makes applicable to this jurisdiction of the recorder all the statutes of the state relating to the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in criminal cases, including “the processes issued by them, the trial of such cases, holding to bail, committing to prison,” etc.; 2. A jurisdiction over all breaches and violations of city ordinances, with power “ to fine and imprison persons adjudged guilty of such violations or noncompliance with said ordinances, or violations of the laws of the state, in the manner provided by law or the ordinances of the city. Such imprisonment shall be in the city prison, or the county jail of Sonoma county.” (Stats. 1875-76, p. 257, sec. 15.)
Under this provision of the charter it is claimed the recorder may imprison violators of the city ordinances either in the city prison or the county jail at his option. But, if we have regard only to this charter provision, it is quite as clear that he has the same option in reference to violators of the criminal laws of the state; and therefore, if he chose, he could sentence any or all [428]offenders against the state law to imprisonment in the city prison, and all offenders against the city ordinances to imprisonment in the county jail. But it is clear that he can have no such option in regard to persons found guilty of violating the criminal laws of the state. There is not only no intention to change the criminal law of the state apparent in the charter, but the frequent reference to such laws as the source of his powers in such cases places it beyond question that no such change was intended. All offenses against the criminal laws of the state are divided into two classes: felonies and misdemeanors. (Pen. Code, sec. 16.) By section 19 of the same code it is provided: “Except in cases where a different punishment is préscribed by this code, every offense declared to be a misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by both.”
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)