Tooby's California Post-Conviction Relief for Immigrants

 

The reasons for the dismissal must be documented in a court order that is entered on the minutes of the criminal case.[484]  "Minutes have been interpreted to include a filed and signed written memorandum opinion."[485] 

 

The statute provides: "The reasons for the dismissal must be set forth in an order entered upon the minutes."[486]  The Supreme Court recently stated the rationale for this requirement:

 

[T]he purpose for the requirement is to allow review of the trial court's reasons for ordering dismissal. “[W]e are dealing not with a pure question of law but with the exercise of a trial court's discretion. It would be incongruous for an appellate court, reviewing such order, to rely on reasons not cited by the trial court. Otherwise, we might uphold a discretionary order on grounds never considered by, or, worse yet, rejected by the trial court. And, if the appellate court is free to scour the record for other reasons to support the dismissal, or accept reasons suggested by the defendant, there was no reason for the Legislature to require that the lower court record the basis for the dismissal in the first instance.”[487]

            Justice Kennard also explained:

 

The purposes for requiring a trial court to state its reasons for a dismissal are (1) to promote judicial accountability so as to protect the public interest in not allowing improper or corrupt dismissals (People v. Orin, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 944, 120 Cal.Rptr. 65, 533 P.2d 193), and (2) to facilitate appellate review (People v. Superior Court (Romero), supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 531, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789, 917 P.2d 628).[488]

 

            (1)  Strict Interpretation.  This requirement is strictly interpreted.  An oral statement of reasons in a written reporter's transcript is insufficient.  A clerk's written summary of the oral reasons given by the court is insufficient, unless it is recorded in an "order entered upon the minutes."[489]  The statement of reasons must say more than simply that the dismissal was in the interests of justice.[490]  A statement of reasons that is conclusory is legally insufficient.[491]  "The statement of reasons need not be explicitly detailed.  A simple statement is sufficient."[492] 

 

            (2)  Exceptions.  On the other hand, several judicial decisions upheld dismissals despite failure strictly to comply with this requirement.[493]  The court has authority to amend its minute order to conform to its actual order.[494]  "[A] trial court's failure to set forth its reasons for a dismissal on the written record will not lead to reversal when it implements a plea bargain between the district attorney and the defendant."  (People v. Bonnetta (April 27, 2009) 46 Cal.4th 143, 153, n.5, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 370.)

[484] People v. Superior Court (Howard) (1968) 69 Cal.2d 491, 502-503 [446 P.2d 138]; People v. Ingram (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1161, 1163, 220 Cal.Rptr. 346; People v. Franklin (1978) 84 CallApp.3d Supp 13, 15, 149 Cal.Rptr. 229.

[485] California Criminal Defense Practice § 51.22[2][b], p. 51-59 (Erwin, Millman, Monroe, Sevilla, & Tarlow, eds. 2009), citing People v. Superior Court (Howard) (1968) 69 Cal.2d 491, 504-505 [446 P.2d 138].

[486] Penal Code § 1385(a). 

[487] People v. Bracey (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1542, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 730, fn. omitted. People v. Bonnetta (April 27, 2009) 46 Cal.4th 143, 151-152, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 370.

[488] People v. Bonnetta (April 27, 2009) 46 Cal.4th 143, 155, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 370 [Kennard, J., dissenting].

[489] Ibid.

[490] People v. Curtiss (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126-127, 84 Cal.Rptr. 106; People v. Winters (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d Supp. 876, 882, 342 P.2d 538.

[491] People v. Brunner (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 908, 911-912, 108 Cal.Rptr. 501 (holding sufficient court's statement that dismissal was based on defendant's motion for immunity).  But see People v. McAlonan (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 982, 986, 99 Cal.Rptr. 733 (holding insufficient statement that the "interests of defendant and of his rehabilitation, and the interests of society" would be served was conclusion based on opinion, rather than fact); People v. Fretwell (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d Supp. 37, 42, 87 Cal.Rptr. 356 (holding statement that dismissal was warrented in view of specific judicial decision was conclusional and overbroad).

[492] California Criminal Defense Practice § 51.22[3], p. 51-60 (Erwin, Millman, Monroe, Sevilla, & Tarlow, eds. 2009), citing People v. Peinado (1976) 67 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 9, 136 Cal.Rptr. 845 (holding sufficient statement that "People have not complied with discovery").

[493] See People v. Brunner (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 908, 912, 108 Cal.Rptr. 501 (order, filed with the court, sufficiently showed dismissal was based on a grant of immunity, even though reasons were not set forth in minutes); People v. Dewberry (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 175, 184, 114 Cal.Rptr. 815 (minute order held sufficient to notify reviewing court of reason for dismissal, where it stated dismissal was pursuant to Penal Code § 1385, and record showed pretrial hearing to consider motion to suppress evidence, granting of motion, and prosecution's declaration of inability to proceed); People v. Peinado (1976) 67 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 9, 136 Cal.Rptr. 845 (court's “cryptic notation” that “People have not complied with discovery. Defendant's motion to dismiss granted. Defendant ordered released” held sufficient to meet statement of reasons requirement, since it adequately informed reviewing court that dismissal had been ordered because of the prosecution's failure to comply with discovery order).

[494] People v. Borousk (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 147, 156, 100 Cal.Rptr. 867 (fact that appeal had intervened did not undermine effectiveness of amendment of minute order to correct deficiency).