# Mitchell v. Superior Court

> California Supreme Court · December 28, 1989 · 49 Cal. 3d 1230

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9790851

## Case

- **Full name:** JAMES LLOYD MITCHELL Et Al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 28, 1989
- **Citations:** 49 Cal. 3d 1230; 265 Cal. Rptr. 144; 783 P.2d 731; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 2106
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Panelli
- **Judges:** Eagleson, Mosk, Lucas, Panelli
- **Cited by:** 69 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9790851

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the general/specific statute rule “do[es] not purport to limit the People’s discretion to prosecute under a general statute that provides a sanction less severe than that called for under a specific statute”

## Opinion text

PANELLI, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
With the exception of the majority’s and conclusion on the “alternative order” issue, I concur in the judgment.
The majority holds imposition of sentence under Code of Civil Procedure section 1209 et seq. violates due process because petitioners were neither charged nor tried under that section. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 1249-1253.) The majority cites no authority for this conclusion. However, it appears to me, that one who commits a Penal Code section 11229 contempt necessarily also commits a contempt under Code of Civil Procedure section 1209, subdivision (a) 5; the former is the violation of a specific court order, and the latter is the violation of “any” court order. Moreover, I fail to see how the seven-day court trial in this case would have been different had the *1259 parties been notified and proceeded from the start of this litigation under the Code of Civil Procedure; the same procedures, protections and standard of proof applied. Accordingly, I cannot imagine in what way petitioners’ due process rights might have been prejudiced in this case.
The petition of real party in interest for a rehearing was denied February 1, 1990. Panelli, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9790851. Public record. Not legal advice.