The opinion
Filed 3/14/25
*
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Appellant, G063126
v. (Super. Ct. No. 19NF3055)
JASON ROBERT HYATT, OPINION
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Justin Glenn-Leistikow, Judge. Affirmed. Motion to Dismiss. Denied. Motion
to Augment Record. Granted. Requests for Judicial Notice. Denied.
Todd Spitzer, District Attorney, and Mina Said, Deputy District
Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
*
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(b) and
8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part I of
the Discussion.
Garrick Byers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Respondent.
* * *
The Orange County District Attorney (District Attorney) appeals
the dismissal of his felony complaint against defendant Jason Robert Hyatt.
The trial court granted Hyatt’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
1
Penal Code section 1381 on the ground the District Attorney failed to bring
Hyatt to trial within 90 days after Hyatt’s attorney of record served the
District Attorney with a demand for trial pursuant to section 1381 (section
1381 demand). Hyatt’s attorney personally served the section 1381 demand
on the District Attorney the same day Hyatt was sentenced to state prison in
an unrelated case and taken into custody to begin serving that prison term.
The District Attorney contends the trial court erred in dismissing his
complaint because the section 1381 demand was premature and therefore did
not start the 90-day clock running. We disagree.
We conclude Hyatt’s demand complied with the statutory
requirements of section 1381 and affirm the order of dismissal.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 5, 2019, the District Attorney filed a complaint
alleging Hyatt had violated section 245, subdivision (a)(4), felony assault with
force likely to produce great bodily injury. The complaint also alleged Hyatt
had suffered two prior serious and violent felony convictions in 2004 and
2014. On December 5, 2019, Hyatt pleaded not guilty and denied the
allegations.
1
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
On August 12, 2022, Hyatt was sentenced to a term of six years
in state prison in an unrelated case and was taken into custody by the
Riverside County Sheriff’s Department pending transport to the California
2
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). On the same day
Hyatt was taken into custody to begin serving his prison sentence in that
case, Hyatt’s attorney prepared the section 1381 demand in this case and had
it personally served on the District Attorney and the clerk of the Orange
3
County Superior Court. The section 1381 demand was set forth on pleading
paper and directed to the District Attorney. The caption included the case
number of the complaint the District Attorney had filed against Hyatt (case
No. 19NF3055) and Hyatt’s full, correct name. It also plainly identified the
“attorney of record” for Hyatt and included the attorney’s contact
information.
The section 1381 demand notified the District Attorney that
Hyatt “is currently committed to a term of imprisonment in the California
Department of Corrections. He is currently (as of 8-12-2022) in the custody of
the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, pending transportation to the
2
In the unrelated case, Hyatt was convicted of and sentenced to
prison for violating section 136.1, subdivision (a)(1) (attempting to
prevent/dissuade a witness against testifying) and section 273.5, subdivision
(a) (corporal injury resulting in traumatic condition).
3
Both parties requested we take judicial notice of the section
1381 demand, and Hyatt requested, alternatively, that we augment the
record on appeal to include it. Although the document was listed on
appellant’s designation of record on appeal and received for filing by the trial
court on September 5, 2023, it was not included as part of the record on
appeal. We therefore grant Hyatt’s unopposed motion to augment the record
to include the section 1381 demand pursuant to California Rules of Court,
rule 8.155(a)(1)(A). The requests for judicial notice are moot.
3
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and is currently
housed at the Southwest Detention Center, located at 30755-B Auld Road,
Murrieta, CA 92563.” The demand further stated: “Under the provisions of
Cal. Penal Code §1381, Mr. Hyatt desires and hereby demands, through
counsel, that he be brought to trial on the alleged violation set forth above,
and on any and all other pending matters.” (Italics added.)
The District Attorney stamped the section 1381 demand
“received” on August 17, 2022, two days after it was personally served. One
week later, on August 25, 2022, the District Attorney mailed a letter directly
to Hyatt at the Riverside County jail stating, “[i]t has been determined that
you have been sentenced to state prison, but have not yet begun to serve your
prison term in state prison”; a section 1381 demand is “not applicable to a
demand letter sent from the county jail by a defendant sentenced to state
prison”; and the section 1381 demand is therefore premature, “does not
invoke the running of the 90-day time limit set by Penal Code section 1381,”
and the District Attorney will take no further action on it. The District
Attorney sent a copy of its response letter to the Orange County Superior
Court, where it was filed on September 2, 2022. The District Attorney did
not, however, serve a copy of its response letter to Hyatt’s attorney of record
who had served the demand. Nor did the District Attorney send a copy to the
CDCR. There is nothing in the record to indicate Hyatt ever received the
District Attorney’s response to his section 1381 demand.
According to prison records, Hyatt was received in state prison on
September 7, 2022. On November 15, 2022, he mailed a handwritten letter to
the Orange County Superior Court inquiring about the status of his case,
saying he wanted to “clear [it] up,” and asking for the identity of his public
defender. Hyatt’s letter was filed in the court records on November 17, 2022.
4
On July 11, 2023—nearly a year after Hyatt’s attorney served the
section 1381 demand—Hyatt sent a second section 1381 demand to the
District Attorney, this time on a CDCR form, signed by Hyatt personally.
On August 24, 2023, Hyatt filed a motion to dismiss the case
based on the District Attorney’s failure to comply with his initial (Aug. 12,
2022) section 1381 demand. The District Attorney opposed the motion. Acting
as a magistrate, the trial court granted Hyatt’s motion and dismissed the
case for failure to timely bring it to trial. The District Attorney timely
appealed the dismissal.
DISCUSSION
I.
HYATT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL
As an initial matter, we address Hyatt’s motion to dismiss the
appeal on the ground this court lacks jurisdiction. The District Attorney
4
appealed the trial court’s order pursuant to section 1238, subdivision (a)(8).
Hyatt contends that because the felony complaint against him was dismissed
prior to a preliminary hearing and no information or indictment was filed, it
5
was not a “‘felony case’” within the meaning of section 691 that can be
4
Section 1238 provides: “An appeal may be taken by the people
from . . . : [¶] . . . [¶] (8) An order or judgment dismissing or otherwise
terminating all or any portion of the action including such an order or
judgment after a verdict or finding of guilty or an order for judgment entered
before the defendant has been placed in jeopardy or where the defendant has
waived jeopardy.” (Id., subd. (a)(8).)
5
Section 691, subdivision (f), defines “‘felony case’” as “a criminal
action in which a felony is charged.”
5
6
appealed to this court under section 1235. For the reasons set forth below,
we conclude the case is properly before us.
As explained in People v. Rodriguez (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 326
(Rodriguez)—decided by another panel of this court—“‘[t]o accommodate the
unification [of the municipal and superior courts], the Legislature amended
sections 1235 and 1466. [Citations.] The proper appellate procedure is no
longer determined by which court (i.e., “inferior” or “superior”) issued the
order. It is now determined by the “type” of case. [Citations.] If the order
occurred in “an infraction or misdemeanor case,” the proper appeal is to the
appellate division of the superior court. [Citation.] If the order occurred in a
“felony case,” the proper appeal is to the Court of Appeal.’” (Id. at p. 332.)
That is true “regardless of whether the appeal is from the superior court, the
municipal court, or the action of a magistrate.” (Recommendation: Trial Court
Unification: Revision of Codes (July 1998) 28 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep.
(1998) pp. 455, 480, italics added.)
Hyatt cites People v. Nickerson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 33
(Nickerson), for the proposition that the case against him was not a felony
case at the time it was dismissed. He argues we should not follow Rodriguez
because it was wrongly decided and failed to address the issue of what
constitutes a felony case. We disagree.
First, the facts in Nickerson are plainly distinguishable from this
case; there, the magistrate had reduced a felony charge to a misdemeanor.
6
Section 1235 provides: “(a) Either party to a felony case may
appeal on questions of law alone, as prescribed in this title and in rules
adopted by the Judicial Council. . . . [¶] (b) An appeal from the judgment or
appealable order in a felony case is to the court of appeal for the district in
which the court from which the appeal is taken is located.”
6
(Nickerson, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at pp. 36–39.) Because the order
transformed the charge to a misdemeanor for all purposes, the court in
Nickerson properly transferred the appeal to the appellate division of the
superior court. (Id. at pp. 39–41.) That is not what happened here.
Second, we disagree with Nickerson’s conclusion, based on its
reading of Serna v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 239 (Serna) and section
949, that a felony is not “‘charged’” under section 691 “until an information or
indictment is filed or a complaint is certified to the superior court pursuant to
section 859a [after a guilty plea is taken by the magistrate].” (Nickerson,
supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 38.)
In Serna, the California Supreme Court examined whether a
misdemeanor complaint is a formal accusation for purposes of triggering the
right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment. In finding it is, the court
relied on a jurisdictional distinction between misdemeanor and felony
complaints that existed before the days of trial court unification. Because a
misdemeanor complaint was deemed to be a formal charge that immediately
conferred jurisdiction on the court, Serna found it was sufficient to trigger the
right to a speedy trial. (Serna, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 257.) However, because
a felony complaint was considered a preliminary accusation that did not
confer jurisdiction until the defendant was bound over for trial, it did not
trigger that right. (Ibid.)
Serna was decided before trial court unification occurred and
concerned itself with a narrow Sixth Amendment issue. Nonetheless,
Nickerson interpreted it as having broader application to the issue of
appellate court jurisdiction in the post-unification era. As we explained
above, however, the statutory landscape surrounding the issue of jurisdiction
was altered significantly at the turn of the century to accommodate the
7
unification of the municipal and superior courts. Serna must be read with
that in mind.
Section 949 also does not preclude us from hearing the District
Attorney’s appeal. Under that section, “[t]he first pleading on the part of the
people in the superior court in a felony case is the indictment, information, or
the complaint in any case certified to the superior court under Section 859a.”
(§ 949.) This statute simply describes when a felony case is formally pled in
the superior court. The fact that none of the events listed in section 949
occurred in Hyatt’s case before it was dismissed does not mean he had never
been charged with a felony for purposes of invoking the jurisdiction of this
court.
In sum, we reject the reasoning of Nickerson and adhere to this
court’s opinion in Rodriguez. Under Rodriguez and sections 1235 and 1238,
subdivision (a)(8), the District Attorney’s appeal to this court is proper
because it arises from an appealable order in a felony case. Accordingly, we
deny Hyatt’s motion to dismiss the appeal.
II.
MERITS OF APPEAL
Turning to the merits, the District Attorney contends the trial
court erred in dismissing the case because Hyatt’s first section 1381 demand
was premature—and therefore defective—because Hyatt was not physically
located inside a state prison when it was served.
We disagree. Hyatt’s section 1381 demand strictly complied with
the requirements of section 1381, and it was served by Hyatt’s attorney on
the District Attorney after Hyatt had been sentenced to state prison and had
started serving his prison sentence. The fact that Hyatt was temporarily
incarcerated in county jail while awaiting transfer to a state prison facility
8
did not mean he had not begun serving his state prison sentence or make his
demand for a speedy trial ineffective.
A. Principles of Review
Whether Hyatt’s demand for trial complied with section 1381
turns on undisputed facts and statutory interpretation. It therefore presents
“‘a question of law we review de novo.’” (People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th
1024, 1032.) “‘“‘“As in any case involving statutory interpretation, our
fundamental task here is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to
effectuate the law’s purpose. [Citation.] We begin by examining the statute’s
words, giving them a plain and commonsense meaning.”’”’ [Citation.] ‘“We
look to ‘the entire substance of the statute . . . in order to determine the scope
and purpose of the provision . . . . [Citation.]’ [Citation.] That is, we construe
the words in question ‘“in context, keeping in mind the nature and obvious
purpose of the statute . . . .” [Citation.]’”’” (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th
952, 961.) “‘“‘“‘If the statutory language permits more than one reasonable
interpretation, courts may consider other aids, such as the statute’s purpose,
legislative history, and public policy.’”’”’ [Citation.] ‘“Generally, we consult
extrinsic sources, like a statute’s history, to interpret a statute only when its
language is ambiguous.”’” (People v. Walker, supra, at p. 1032.)
B. Section 1381
Section 1381 allows individuals who are serving a term of
imprisonment in California and have state charges pending against them to
(1) demand the district attorney’s office proceed to trial on the pending
charges, and (2) file a motion to dismiss if their case is not brought to trial
within 90 days. Along with other Penal Code sections, section 1381 is
“‘declaratory of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.’” (People v.
Contreras (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1303.)
9
Section 1381 provides in pertinent part as follows: “Whenever a
defendant has been convicted, in any court of this state, of the commission of
a felony or misdemeanor and has been sentenced to and has entered upon a
term of imprisonment in a state prison or has been sentenced to and has
entered upon a term of imprisonment in a county jail for a period of more
than 90 days or has been committed to and placed in a county jail for more
than 90 days as a condition of probation or has been committed to and placed
in an institution subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of the Youth
Authority or whenever any person has been committed to the custody of the
Director of Corrections pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section
3000) of Division 3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and has entered
upon his or her term of commitment, and at the time of the entry upon the
term of imprisonment or commitment there is pending, in any court of this
state, any other . . . complaint, or any criminal proceeding wherein the
defendant remains to be sentenced, the district attorney of the county in
which the matters are pending shall bring the defendant to trial or for
sentencing within 90 days after the person shall have delivered to said
district attorney written notice of the place of his or her imprisonment or
commitment and his or her desire to be brought to trial or for
sentencing . . . . In the event that the defendant is not brought to trial or for
sentencing within the 90 days the court in which the charge or sentencing is
pending shall, on motion . . . or on its own motion, dismiss the action.”
(§ 1381.)
C. Hyatt’s Demand Strictly Complied with Section 1381’s Notice
Requirements
Courts have held, and we agree, that “[b]ecause of the drastic
sanction [of dismissal] imposed by section 1381, a prisoner must strictly
10
comply with its conditions.” (People v. Gutierrez (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 105,
111 (Gutierrez); see also People v. Garcia (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1187, 1191.)
Here, Hyatt’s initial section 1381 demand notified the District Attorney that
he had been committed to a term of imprisonment in state prison and was
currently in the custody of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
pending transportation to the CDCR. The notice stated the name and contact
information for Hyatt’s attorney, as well as the precise address of the
Riverside County jail where he was physically being held awaiting transport
to state prison. The notice expressly demanded—through counsel—that Hyatt
be brought to trial on the violation alleged in case No. 19NF3055.
The District Attorney rejected the notice as “premature,” stating
that a section 1381 demand is “not applicable to a demand letter sent from
the county jail by a defendant sentenced to state prison,” and suggested
Hyatt had not yet begun to serve his term in state prison. In fact, the notice
had been personally served by Hyatt’s attorney, who was clearly identified as
“attorney of record” on the demand. At that point, the District Attorney had a
felony case pending against Hyatt and had been made aware that Hyatt was
represented by counsel. The District Attorney therefore was required to
communicate only with Hyatt’s attorney of record unless and until instructed
otherwise. (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 4.2.) But the District Attorney did
not comply with its obligation to communicate with Hyatt’s counsel. Instead,
it sent its response directly to Hyatt, addressed to the Riverside County jail,
11
telling him it would take no action because his demand had not triggered his
7
speedy trial rights under section 1381.
The District Attorney reiterates that position on appeal, arguing
the speedy trial provisions of section 1381 are not triggered until a defendant
who has been sentenced to state prison and taken into custody to begin
serving that prison term has been physically delivered to state prison. The
District Attorney’s argument is based on the following language from the
statute: “Whenever a defendant has been convicted . . . of the commission of a
felony . . . and has been sentenced to and has entered upon a term of
imprisonment in a state prison . . . .” (§ 1381, italics added.) The District
Attorney also relies on two California appellate court decisions, Gutierrez,
supra, 30 Cal.App.4th 105 and People v. Clark (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 975
(Clark), which we discuss below.
We disagree with the District Attorney’s contention that Hyatt’s
physical location at the time his attorney served the section 1381 demand on
the District Attorney rendered the demand premature and permitted the
District Attorney to refuse to act on it.
First, we do not interpret section 1381 to require that every
defendant who has been sentenced to state prison and has commenced
serving their sentence must be physically present on state prison grounds
when a section 1381 demand is served. Reading section 1381 as a whole in
order to determine the intent behind the statute, we conclude the language
7
We note that, had the District Attorney simply complied with its
obligation to communicate with Hyatt’s attorney, rather than sending its
response letter to Hyatt at the county jail, Hyatt’s attorney could have
obviated this dispute by promptly sending (or advising Hyatt to send) another
section 1381 demand once Hyatt arrived in prison.
12
“entered upon a term of imprisonment in a state prison” was intended by the
Legislature to describe the type of defendant who can invoke its provisions,
i.e., those defendants who are serving a state prison sentence. We do not read
the language as reflecting any intent by the Legislature to require the
defendant’s physical presence inside a state prison when the demand is
served.
To that end, we generally must “‘accord[ ] significance, if possible,
to every word, phrase and sentence in pursuance of the legislative purpose.’”
(People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347, 357.) “‘[T]he words of the statute
must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and
statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be
harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible.’
[Citation.] ‘Where uncertainty exists consideration should be given to the
consequences that will flow from a particular interpretation.’” (Ibid.) With
these principles in mind, we find support for our conclusion in the wording of
section 1381. Section 1381 applies to different defendants committed to
different institutions, under different circumstances. It applies to defendants,
like Hyatt, who are convicted of felonies and sentenced to state prison and
have “entered upon a term of imprisonment in a state prison.” (§ 1381.) It
applies to defendants who have been convicted of misdemeanors and have
been sentenced to and have “entered upon a term of imprisonment in a
county jail for a period of more than 90 days.” (Ibid.) It applies to defendants
who have been “committed to and placed in a county jail for more than 90
days as a condition of probation.” (Ibid, italics added.) It also applies to
defendants who have been “committed to and placed in an institution subject
to the jurisdiction of the Department of the Youth Authority.” (Ibid, italics
added.) And it applies to defendants who have been “committed to the
13
custody of the Director of Corrections pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing
with Section 3000) of Division 3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and
[have] entered upon his or her term of commitment.” (§ 1381.)
It is noteworthy that the Legislature used the phrase “committed
to and placed in” when referring to defendants in county jail as a condition of
probation and to defendants in an institution subject to the jurisdiction of the
Department of the Youth Authority. (§ 1381.) The phrase “placed in” reflects
the Legislature’s intent to impose a physical presence requirement on those
categories of defendants. But when describing the applicability of the statute
to defendants who have been convicted of a felony and sentenced to a term in
state prison, the Legislature chose different language: it required only that
they have “entered upon [their] term of imprisonment in a state prison.”
(Ibid.) It did not use the phrase “placed in” state prison. The use of the words
“placed in” to describe certain categories of defendants, but not those serving
a state prison sentence, indicates the Legislature understood how to impose a
physical requirement when it wanted to, and that it chose not to do so for
felons who had been convicted and sentenced to state prison. “‘“Ordinarily,
where the Legislature uses a different word or phrase in one part of a statute
than it does in other sections or in a similar statute concerning a related
subject, it must be presumed that the Legislature intended a different
meaning.”’” (Roy v. Superior Court (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1352.)
“Moreover, ‘“[i]t is a well recognized principle of statutory construction that
when the Legislature has carefully employed a term in one place and has
excluded it in another, it should not be implied where excluded.”’” (People v.
Smith (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 741, 760.)
We do not find the language in the statute ambiguous. Even if it
were, however, the legislative history quoted by the District Attorney in its
14
appellate briefing supports our conclusion. Initially, the version of the bill
that enacted section 1381 required that a defendant be brought to trial
“within ninety days after such defendant has been delivered to such state
prison . . . .” (Assem. Bill No. 1917 (1931 Reg. Sess.) as introduced Apr. 9,
1931, italics added.) The bill was amended, however, to delete the “delivered
to . . . state prison” language. The final language of the statute requires only
that a defendant who has “been sentenced to and has entered upon a term of
imprisonment in a state prison” be brought to trial within 90 days after
serving the demand for trial. (§ 1381.) This is further evidence the legislature
knew how to specifically impose a physical presence requirement by using
language such as “delivered to” or “placed in” state prison, but chose not to do
8
so.
Finally, interpreting section 1381 to require a defendant be
physically present inside a state prison before a demand for trial may be
served could lead to results that undermine the Legislature’s intent in
adopting section 1381. At the outset, there can be no dispute that a defendant
(like Hyatt) began serving his state prison sentence when he was taken into
custody after his sentencing and was confined in the county jail pending
transport to a state prison. The District Attorney does not—and cannot—
argue that the time such a defendant spends incarcerated in the county jail
after being convicted and while awaiting transport to state prison does not
count as part of a defendant’s state prison sentence. “In all felony and
8
We disagree with the District Attorney that the phrase “in a
state prison” would be superfluous if it were not intended to impose a
physical presence requirement. The language was intended to differentiate
those defendants convicted of felonies and sentenced to state prison from
those serving a sentence in county jail.
15
misdemeanor convictions . . . when the defendant has been in custody,
including, but not limited to, any time spent in a jail . . . all days of custody of
the defendant . . . shall be credited upon his or her term of
imprisonment . . . .” (§ 2900.5, subd. (a).) Moreover, the fact that a convicted
defendant is held in custody in a county jail before being transferred to a
state prison does not “transform him from a state prisoner to a local
presentence detainee.” (People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 33.) The
time Hyatt spent in custody in Riverside County jail clearly was part of his
state prison sentence.
The purpose of section 1381 also supports our statutory
interpretation. Section 1381 was intended “to permit a defendant to obtain
concurrent sentencing at the hands of the court in which the earlier
proceeding is pending, if such is the court’s discretion.” (Boles v. Superior
Court (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 479, 484; Stats 1968, Ch. 343, § 1.) “Prompt
disposition of the pending charge is important to a prisoner in order to have
the opportunity to serve the sentences concurrently.” (Gutierrez, supra, 30
Cal.App.4th at p. 109; see People v. Wagner (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1039; People v.
Simpson (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 177, 181 [section 1381 is intended to
accelerate the resolution of pending cases while the defendant is in prison
status so that “he would not have [pending] charges hanging over him and
waiting for him on his release”].) Imposing a requirement that a defendant
sentenced to state prison must wait to serve a section 1381 demand until he
has been physically delivered to the prison grounds could delay or deny, for
reasons completely outside the defendant’s control, the defendant’s ability to
promptly dispose of his or her case and secure the potential benefit of
concurrent sentencing. Thus, to effectuate the legislative intent of section
1381, defendants like Hyatt who have begun serving their state prison
16
sentence but are being held temporarily in custody in county jail pending
transport to a state facility can—and should—be considered to have “entered
upon a term of imprisonment in a state prison.” (§ 1381.)
Even if we assume some ambiguity in the statutory
language, we are faced with another overriding principle of statutory
construction, the rule of lenity: “It is the policy of this state to construe a
penal statute as favorably to the defendant as its language and the
circumstances of its application may reasonably permit; just as in the case of
a question of fact, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable
doubt as to the true interpretation of words or the construction of language
used in a statute.” (Keeler v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 619, 631.) And,
here, this is particularly true given the purpose of the statute to confer on the
defendant the right to a speedy trial and the ability for a defendant to obtain
concurrent sentencing.
Neither Gutierrez, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th 105 nor Clark, supra,
172 Cal.App.3d 975, persuades us to reach a contrary result. Clark stated, in
a conclusory fashion, that a defendant who has been sentenced to state prison
but is incarcerated in county jail awaiting delivery to the prison grounds
cannot serve a valid section 1381 demand. (Clark, supra, at pp. 980–981.)
Gutierrez did the same, citing Clark. (Gutierrez, supra, at p. 111.) Neither
case analyzed the meaning of the statutory language in the context of the
statute as a whole. Nor did they analyze the legislative history of section
1381, including the significance of the legislature’s deletion of the originally
proposed “delivered to . . . state prison” requirement from the statute. Having
performed this analysis, we are persuaded section 1381 should not be
construed as Clark and Gutierrez suggest.
17
The District Attorney also cites People v. Nunez (1984) 162
Cal.App.3d 280, for the proposition that “in a state prison” as used in section
1381 was intended to impose a physical limitation. Nunez involved an earlier
version of section 4500 which pertained to persons “‘undergoing a life
sentence in a state prison . . . .’” (People v. Nunez, supra, at p. 283.) The
Nunez court held that, because the defendant in that case was in county jail
and not in state prison at the time he committed the assault, section 4500 did
not apply. (People v. Nunez, supra, at p. 284.) Nunez is distinguishable
because the statute there focused on the defendant’s physical location at the
time of the crime whereas the statute at issue here focuses on the sentence,
namely a sentence to state prison. In addition, the Legislature amended
section 4500 in response to Nunez to clarify there was no physical limitation.
It amended the statute to state the assailant must be “undergoing a life
sentence” and be “sentenced to state prison within this state,” (§ 4500) rather
than be “undergoing a life sentence in a state prison” of this state. (Assem.
Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 259 (1985–1986 Reg. Sess.)
as amended Jan. 30, 1986.)
We conclude Hyatt’s section 1381 demand letter strictly complied
with the requirements of section 1381. It accurately stated Hyatt’s name and
case number. The demand correctly notified the District Attorney that Hyatt
had been sentenced to state prison in another case and was in custody
serving that sentence while he awaited transfer. It accurately stated he was
“in the custody of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, pending
transportation to the California Department of Corrections and
18
9
Rehabilitation,” and it gave the precise address where Hyatt was being held.
Finally, it was served on the District Attorney by Hyatt’s attorney of record,
who unequivocally demanded a speedy trial on Hyatt’s behalf. Because the
District Attorney failed to bring Hyatt to trial within 90 days, the trial court
did not err in dismissing the action.
DISPOSITION
The order of dismissal is affirmed. Hyatt’s motion to dismiss the
appeal is denied. Hyatt’s motion to augment the record with his August 12,
2022 “Notice of Demand for Trial or Disposition Pursuant to Cal. Penal Code
§ 1381” is granted. The parties’ requests for judicial notice of the same
document are denied as moot.
GOODING, J.
I CONCUR:
GOETHALS, ACTING P. J.
9
The content of Hyatt’s section 1381 demand was materially
distinguishable from those in Clark and Gutierrez. In Clark, the defendant
used an alias on his demand instead of his actual name, which was the name
used for him in the CDCR records. (Clark, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at pp. 978,
980–981.) In Gutierrez, the defendant’s section 1381 demand “misleadingly
implied that he was committed to a term in the Orange County jail” when in
fact he had been sentenced to a term in state prison. (Gutierrez, supra, 30
Cal.App.4th at p. 110.) Hyatt’s demand suffered no such defects.
19
MOTOIKE, J., Dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion’s affirmance of
the trial court’s order dismissing the felony complaint against Jason Robert
Hyatt pursuant to Penal Code section 1381 (section 1381). This appeal hinges
on the application of a novel interpretation of section 1381 that is not only
unsupported by the statute’s plain language or any legislative history, but
constitutes an unwarranted departure from decades-old, settled case law that
has been followed by courts and criminal law practitioners for the past 40
years. Application of the trial court’s interpretation of section 1381 has the
significant consequence of requiring courts to dismiss criminal charges the
Legislature did not intend be dismissed under that statute. I would reverse
the trial court’s dismissal order and remand with directions the court
reinstate the felony complaint against Hyatt.
Section 1381 provides that when a defendant is in a California
state prison, and is also then facing a pending criminal charge, that
defendant may deliver to the responsible district attorney a demand the
pending charge be brought to trial or sentencing within 90 days else it be
subject to dismissal. Section 1381, as a provision “declaratory of the
constitutional right to a speedy trial” (Barker v. Municipal Court (1966)
64 Cal.2d 806, 811), thus provides for the prompt disposition of pending
charges, allowing a defendant the opportunity to serve any new sentence that
may be imposed concurrently with the term already being served in a state
prison (id. at p. 813). As pointed out in the majority opinion, in order for such
a demand to be valid, it must strictly comply with all of the requirements set
forth in section 1381. (Maj. opn. ante, pp. 10–11.)
Since the time section 1381 was enacted in 1931, the only
published decisions addressing the issue have uniformly held that section
1
1381 requires a defendant making a demand under section 1381 to be, as
unambiguously stated in the statute, literally “in a state prison” (§ 1381,
italics added), serving the defendant’s term of imprisonment, at the time the
demand is made. (People v. Gutierrez (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 105, 110–111,
review den. Feb. 22, 1995, S044097 (Gutierrez); People v. Clark (1985) 172
Cal.App.3d 975, 980–981 (Clark).) Those decisions specifically hold a demand
made after sentencing and after the defendant has “entered upon [the
defendant’s] term of imprisonment” (§ 1381), but before the defendant has
been transported from a county jail or other institution to a state prison, is
premature and consequently invalid per se. (Gutierrez, supra, at p. 110;
Clark, supra, at p. 981.) 1
There is a good reason for the Legislature to require a defendant
to be physically in a state prison at the time the defendant delivers an
otherwise valid section 1381 demand on a district attorney, thereby starting
the 90-day clock the district attorney must bring a pending charge to trial or
sentencing. 2 The failure of a district attorney in receipt of a valid section 1381
1 The majority opinion notes “the content of Hyatt’s section 1381
demand was materially distinguishable from those in Clark and Gutierrez.”
(Maj. opn. ante, p. 19, fn. 9.) Any factual differences between the defendant’s
demands in those cases and the demand in the instant case are irrelevant to
the resolution of the issue of statutory interpretation before us.
2 The majority opinion states: “It is noteworthy that the
Legislature [in section 1381] used the phrase ‘committed to and placed in’
when referring to defendants in county jail as a condition of probation and to
defendants in an institution subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of
Youth Authority. . . . The phrase ‘placed in’ reflects the Legislature’s intent to
impose a physical presence requirement on those categories of defendants.
But when describing the applicability of the statute to defendants who have
been convicted of a felony and sentenced to a term in state prison, the
Legislature chose different language: it required only that they have ‘entered
2
demand to comply with section 1381 results in “‘the drastic sanction of
dismissal.’” (People v. Garcia (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1187, 1191.) Hence,
“courts have required defendants to comply strictly with statutory
requirements,” as “‘[a]ny other rule would encourage resort to half-hearted,
disingenuous gestures toward compliance calculated at most to start the 90-
day period running and contrived in fact to achieve official default.’” (Ibid.) 3
The strict construction of section 1381’s statutory requirement
the defendant be physically located “in a state prison” addresses the logistical
problems presented in physically locating the defendant, for the purpose of
speedily bringing pending charges to trial, when the defendant is still in the
post-sentencing process of being transferred between institutions, such as
from a county jail to a state prison where the defendant is ultimately settled
to serve out the term of imprisonment imposed. (Clark, supra,
172 Cal.App.3d at pp. 980–981; see Gutierrez, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at p. 111
[“Here, too, the trial court noted the difficulty of tracking appellant when
upon [their] term of imprisonment in a state prison.’” (Maj. opn. ante, p. 14.) I
disagree with the majority opinion’s reliance on the word “placed.” The
operative word in the statute is the word “in.” Significantly, section 1381 uses
the word “in” with respect to all categories of defendants and their respective
custodial status. Therefore, section 1381 requires the defendant’s physical
presence in whichever institution the defendant has been imprisoned or
committed before the defendant may make a demand under that code section.
3 Section 1381 “‘was placed in the law so that a prisoner could
clean up pending charges as well as charges arising while in a prison status
so that he would not have these charges hanging over him and waiting for
him on his release.’ [Citation.] Section 1381 was not intended to be used as a
means of avoiding prosecution.” (People v. Boggs (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 851,
855; see ibid., fn. 3 [section 1381 “‘is not to be invoked by a defendant for the
purpose of starting the statutory time running, and then by one means or
another forestalling a trial within that period, thus to attain immunity from
further prosecution’”].)
3
appellant’s [section 1381] demand gave only the Orange County [jail] address
and identification”].)
Perhaps it is this practicality of strictly enforcing the “in a state
prison” requirement of section 1381 that explains why it has not been the
subject of conflicting court decisions (until now) and has otherwise been a
settled aspect of criminal procedure. (See Cal. Criminal Law: Procedure and
Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2024) § 19.33, pp. 527–528 [citing Gutierrez and Clark,
explains that under § 1381: “A defendant serving a term in a California state
prison . . . , with other criminal charges pending in California, can demand
that the new charge be brought to trial within 90 calendar days after delivery
of demand on the district attorney for the county in which the matter is
pending. [Citation.] The defendant must physically be . . . in prison on the
prison sentence”], italics added.)
I am not aware of any latent legislative history suggesting that
the courts and criminal law practitioners have been getting it wrong since
Clark and Gutierrez were decided decades ago. 4 The Legislature amended
section 1381 (Stats 1987, ch. 828, § 91) two years after the appellate court’s
decision in Clark was issued in 1985, but did not alter or clarify the “in a
state prison” requirement of that statute in light of Clark’s interpretation at
that time, and has not done so since notwithstanding the Gutierrez court
applying the same interpretation eight years later and the Supreme Court
4 I disagree with the majority opinion the Legislature’s choice of
the words “in a state prison” in 1931 when it originally enacted section 1381,
over initially proposed language of “‘delivered to . . . state prison,’” reveals an
original legislative intent not to require a defendant’s physical presence in a
state prison at the time of a demand under that code section. (Maj. opn. ante,
p. 15.) Instead, that choice likely reflects an intent by the Legislature to key
the time at which a section 1381 demand must be made to a place (in a state
prison) versus a state of action (being delivered to a prison).
4
denying a petition for review of the Gutierrez decision a year after that. (See
Walker v. Superior Court (1988) 47 Cal.3d 112, 129 [“‘The failure of the
Legislature to change the law in a particular respect when the subject is
generally before it and changes in other respects are made is indicative of an
intent to leave the law as it stands in the aspects not amended’”].)
Here, the record conclusively establishes Hyatt made his section
1381 demand the day he was sentenced to prison in his prior criminal case
and while he was in the Riverside County jail awaiting transport to a state
prison to serve out his term of imprisonment. Hyatt’s demand was
prematurely made and thus invalid.
To the extent Hyatt argues the fatal defect in his section 1381
demand could be somehow cured by the Orange County District Attorney’s
manner of responding to it, any such argument is without merit. That the
Orange County District Attorney communicated directly with Hyatt instead
of his attorney, whether in violation of rule 4.2 of the State Bar Rules of
Professional Conduct or otherwise, has no bearing on the fact Hyatt’s demand
was invalid at the time it was made. While it is established an attorney
should not directly communicate with a party known to be represented by
counsel, section 1381 does not authorize the dismissal of a felony complaint
because of any such errant communication by a district attorney. Hyatt does
not cite legal authority or provide any legal analysis showing otherwise.
5
For these reasons, I believe the trial court erred in dismissing the
felony complaint against Hyatt pursuant to section 1381, the court’s
dismissal order should be reversed, and the matter should be remanded for
reinstatement of the felony complaint.
MOTOIKE, J.
6