Back in 2012, Mr. Adelmann was convicted of felony narcotics possession, H&S 11350, in San Diego County. He was placed on probation. Adelmann then moved to Riverside county and full jurisdiction over his case was transferred to Riverside County pursuant to PC 1203.9.
In 2015, Adelmann tried to file a PC 1170.18 petition in San Diego County. The San Diego Court stated it had no case file and would not hear his petition. A call to the San Diego public defender's office confirmed that San Diego courts do not hear 1170.18 petitions on cases that had been transferred under 1203.9.
So, Adelmann filed his petition in Riverside county and a Riverside county Superior Court Judge granted relief. The State appealed, arguing Riverside county had no jurisdiction to hear Adelmann's petition.
The Fourth District affirms, disagreeing with the First District in P v. Curry.
When Bush v. Gore was being decided in 2000, the great Judge Richard Posner asserted that it was less important what decision be made than that a decision be made. I think the same about this issue. Whether the court determines it to be the transferring court, the transferee court, or either, people just need to know where they can file their petitions.
I had no qualms with the decision in P v. Curry, although I did have an issue with the analysis. Likewise here I have no problem with the result (despite it being contrary to Curry). What sticks in my craw is that this opinion misstates the facts in Curry to make the First District's opinion appear more legitimate than it actually is. The transfer at issue in Curry was not a PRCS transfer, it was a 1203.9 probation transfer. To the extent this opinion states otherwise (perhaps in undeserved deference to its sister court) it should be corrected.
So now after two opinions, one holding the transferring court is the proper venue for 1170.18 petitions and the other holding the transferee court is the proper venue, what is a petitioner to do?
No comments:
Post a Comment