People?v.?Superior?Court?(Marks)?(1991)?1?Cal.4th?56?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?389;?820?P.2d?613
[No.?S013832.?Dec?19,?1991.]THE?PEOPLE,?Petitioner,?v.?THE?SUPERIOR?COURT?OF?LOS?ANGELES?COUNTY,?Respondent;?JOHN?MARKS,?Real?Party?in?Interest.
(Superior?Court?of?Los?Angeles?County,?No.?A526645,?Robert?Martinez,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?Arabian,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.)
COUNSEL
Ira?Reiner,?District?Attorney,?Harry?B.?Sondheim,?Donald?J.?Kaplan?and?Brent?Riggs,?Deputy?District?Attorneys,?for?Petitioners.
Kent?S.?Scheidegger?as?Amicus?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Petitioner.
No?appearance?for?Respondent.
John?Marks,?in?pro.?per.,?Lawrence?A.?Morse?and?Robert?S.?Gerstein?for?Real?Party?in?Interest.
Farella,?Braun?&?Martel,?Douglas?R.?Young,?Douglas?Sortino?and?Ann?G.?Daniels?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Real?Party?in?Interest.
OPINION
ARABIAN,?J.
- Introduction
We?confront?in?this?case?the?interplay?of?two?otherwise?unrelated?constitutional?concerns:?the?prohibition?against?being?twice?put?in?jeopardy?and?the?right?of?a?criminal?defendant?to?be?mentally?as?well?as?physically?present?at?[1?Cal.4th?62]?trial.?In?deciding?whether?real?party?in?interest?John?Marks?fn.?1?may?invoke?the?protections?of?the?double?jeopardy?clause,?we?first?consider?whether?a?trial?court?suffers?a?fundamental?loss?of?jurisdiction?when?it?subjects?a?defendant?to?trial?without?first?determining?that?he?has?the?requisite?capacity?to?understand,?consult,?and?assist?in?the?defense?of?his?life?or?liberty.?(Pen.?Code,???1368.)?We?resolve?this?threshold?question?in?the?negative?and?conclude?the?court?retains?jurisdiction?over?the?subsequent,?albeit?defective,?proceedings.
This?determination?does?not?end?our?inquiry,?however.?Because?the?failure?to?evaluate?a?defendant’s?competence?to?stand?trial?mandates?reversal,?principles?of?double?jeopardy?may?limit?the?scope?of?reprosecution.?To?assess?the?proper?application?of?this?constitutional?guaranty?in?the?present?factual?context,?we?also?address?whether?a?conviction?of?a?lesser?degree?crime?by?operation?of?law?(Pen.?Code,???1157)?fn.?2?should?be?accorded?the?same?effect?on?retrial?as?an?express?finding?of?the?lesser?degree?crime?by?the?previous?trier?of?fact.?This?question?we?answer?in?the?affirmative.
- Factual?and?Procedural?Background
We?are?not?unacquainted?with?the?underlying?factual?and?procedural?history?herein,?portions?of?which?we?reviewed?on?automatic?appeal.?fn.?3?(People?v.?Marks?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?1335,?1338-1339?[248?Cal.Rptr.?874,?756?P.2d?260]?(Marks?I).)?The?record?established?reversible?error?because?the?trial?court?failed?to?hold?a?competency?hearing?in?compliance?with?section?1368,?subdivision?(b),?after?expressing?a?doubt?as?to?defendant’s?ability?to?proceed?with?the?guilt?phase.?(45?Cal.3d?at?pp.?1340-1344;?see?People?v.?Hale?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?531,?541?[244?Cal.Rptr.?114,?749?P.2d?769].)?”[T]o?provide?brief?guidance?to?the?trial?court?for?the?possibility?of?a?retrial,”?we?noted?that?”[t]he?jury’s?verdict?did?not?specify?the?degree?of?murder?of?which?defendant?was?convicted?[contrary?to?the?mandate?of?section?1157].”?(45?Cal.3d?at?p.?1344.)
The?matter?returned?to?the?trial?court,?where?defendant?was?found?competent.?The?prosecution?reinstated?all?charges,?including?first?degree?murder,?both?special?circumstance?allegations,?and?all?enhancement?allegations,?and?[1?Cal.4th?63]?indicated?its?intention?again?to?seek?the?death?penalty.?Defendant?entered?pleas?of?former?acquittal?and?once?in?jeopardy?(??1016),?essentially?contending?that?by?operation?of?section?1157?the?prosecution?could?not?retry?him?on?any?offense?greater?than?second?degree?murder.?fn.?4?The?People?responded?that?the?trial?court’s?section?1368?error?rendered?it?without?jurisdiction?except?to?hold?a?competency?hearing?and?that?all?other?proceedings?were?a?nullity.?Since?jeopardy?never?attached,?the?proffered?pleas?were?unavailable.
After?a?hearing?on?the?matter,?the?trial?court?agreed?with?defendant?and?limited?the?prosecution?to?retrial?for?second?degree?murder.?fn.?5?The?People?petitioned?for?extraordinary?relief;?in?a?divided?opinion,?the?Court?of?Appeal?issued?a?peremptory?writ?of?mandate?directing?the?trial?court?to?set?aside?its?order?precluding?prosecution?for?first?degree?murder?and?to?strike?defendant’s?pleas?of?former?acquittal?and?once?in?jeopardy.
In?reversing?the?trial?court,?the?Court?of?Appeal?majority?accepted?the?People’s?jurisdictional?argument,?obviating?the?need?to?consider?defendant’s?double?jeopardy?claims.?In?a?lengthy?explication,?the?dissent?vigorously?disagreed,?positing?that?the?trial?court?did?not?proceed?without?jurisdiction?but?only?in?excess?of?jurisdiction?because?its?failure?to?hold?a?competency?hearing?denied?defendant?his?due?process?right?to?a?fair?trial.?Since?the?trial?proceedings?were?thus?not?void,?double?jeopardy?might?preclude?retrial?for?first?degree?murder.?The?dissent?declined,?however,?to?reach?this?issue?in?light?of?countervailing?policy?considerations,?concluding?instead?that?due?process?required?the?same?result?to?avoid?penalizing?defendant?for?exercising?his?right?to?appeal.
We?granted?defendant’s?petition?for?review?and?stayed?further?proceedings.
III.?Discussion
- Trial?Court?Jurisdiction
The?parties?have?framed?the?nature?and?scope?of?our?threshold?inquiry?thusly:?The?People?contend?double?jeopardy?is?not?implicated?because?the?trial?court’s?failure?to?observe?the?mandate?of?section?1368?divested?it?of?fundamental,?i.e.,?subject?matter,?jurisdiction.?”Both?the?history?of?the?Double?Jeopardy?Clause?and?its?terms?demonstrate?that?it?does?not?come?into?play?until?a?proceeding?begins?before?a?trier?’having?jurisdiction?to?try?the?[1?Cal.4th?64]?question?of?guilt?or?innocence?of?the?accused.’?[Citations.]”?(Serfass?v.?United?States?(1975)?420?U.S.?377,?391[43?L.Ed.2d?265,?276,?95?S.Ct.?1055];?see?United?States?v.?Perez?(1824)?22?U.S.?579?[6?L.Ed.?165].)?From?this?perspective,?since?section?1368?error?requires?reversal?irrespective?of?prejudice?(see,?e.g.,?People?v.?Hale,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?541),?defendant?was?never?subjected?to?the?possibility?of?a?valid?conviction.?”Without?risk?of?a?determination?of?guilt,?jeopardy?does?not?attach,?and?neither?an?appeal?nor?further?prosecution?constitutes?double?jeopardy.”?(Serfass?v.?United?States,?supra,?420?U.S.?at?pp.?391-392?[43?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?276].)?Put?succinctly,?”an?accused?must?suffer?jeopardy?before?he?can?suffer?double?jeopardy.”?(Id.,?at?p.?393?[43?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?277].)
Defendant?counters?that?principles?of?double?jeopardy?obtain?because?”[t]he?jurisdictional?concept?involved?…?is?not?lack?of?jurisdiction?of?the?cause?but?excess?of?jurisdiction.?[Citation.]”?(In?re?Griffin?(1967)?67?Cal.2d?343,?347?[62?Cal.Rptr.?1,?431?P.2d?625];?see?also,?e.g.,?People?v.?Superior?Court?(Prudencio)?(1927)?202?Cal.?165,?174?[259?P.?943],?disapproved?on?other?grounds?in?People?v.?Superior?Court?(Howard)?(1968)?69?Cal.2d?491,?501?[72?Cal.Rptr.?330,?446?P.2d?138].)?Accordingly,?even?when,?for?example,?a?case?proceeds?under?a?”fatally?defective”?indictment,?”if?the?court?had?jurisdiction?of?the?cause?and?the?party,?its?judgment?is?not?void,?but?only?voidable”;?and?the?defendant?may?invoke?double?jeopardy.?(United?States?v.?Ball?(1896)?163?U.S.?662,?669-670?[41?L.Ed.?300,?302-303,?16?S.Ct.?1192];?Benton?v.?Maryland?(1969)?395?U.S.?784,?797?[23?L.Ed.2d?707,?717,?89?S.Ct.?2056];?see?In?re?Hess?(1955)?45?Cal.2d?171,?175-176?[288?P.2d?5];?In?re?Dellasala?(1977)?66?Cal.App.3d?453,?456-457?[136?Cal.Rptr.?99].)?In?defendant’s?view,?the?trial?court?retained?subject?matter?jurisdiction?even?if?it?lacked?discretion?to?act?other?than?in?compliance?with?section?1368.
[1a]?In?arguing?an?absence?of?fundamental?jurisdiction,?the?People?rely?substantially?on?our?statement?in?Marks?I?that?”once?a?trial?court?has?ordered?a?competency?hearing?pursuant?to?section?1368,?the?court?lacks?jurisdiction?to?conduct?further?proceedings?on?the?criminal?charge?or?charges?against?the?defendant?until?the?court?has?determined?whether?he?is?competent.”?(Marks?I,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?1337,?citing?People?v.?Hale,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?531.)?[2,?1b]?(See?fn.?6.)?We?also?reiterated?our?earlier?conclusion?in?Hale:?”?’The?sub?silentio?disposition?of?the?section?1368?proceedings?without?a?full?competency?hearing?rendered?the?subsequent?trial?proceedings?void?because?the?court?had?been?divested?of?jurisdiction?to?proceed?pending?express?determination?of?the?competency?issue.’?[Citation.]”?fn.?6?(Marks?I,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?1344.)?[3a]?The?People?also?note?that?since?People?v.?Pennington?(1967)?66?Cal.2d?508?[58?Cal.Rptr.?374,?426?P.2d?942]?(Pennington),?[1?Cal.4th?65]?this?court?and?the?Courts?of?Appeal?have?consistently?spoken?in?jurisdictional?terms?when?referring?to?this?species?of?error.?(Id.,?at?p.?521?[trial?court?”pronounced?judgment?…?without?jurisdiction?to?do?so.”];?see?People?v.?Hale,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?541?[trial?court?”has?no?jurisdiction?to?proceed”];?In?re?Davis?(1973)?8?Cal.3d?798,?808?[106?Cal.Rptr.?178,?505?P.2d?1018]?[“the?matter?is?jurisdictional”];?People?v.?Day?(1988)?201?Cal.App.3d?112,?119?[247?Cal.Rptr.?68]?[“the?court?has?no?power?to?proceed”];?People?v.?Conrad?(1982)?132?Cal.App.3d?361,?367?[182?Cal.Rptr.?912]?[trial?court?”lacks?jurisdiction?to?try,?judge,?or?sentence?a?defendant”];?People?v.?Tomas?(1977)?74?Cal.App.3d?75,?87-88?[141?Cal.Rptr.?453]?[“Since?the?matter?is?jurisdictional?[citation],?the?court?lacks?the?power?to?try,?judge,?or?sentence?….”];?cf.???1367?[defendant?”cannot?be?tried?or?adjudged?to?punishment?while?…?mentally?incompetent”].)Despite?their?imperative?tenor,?however,?none?of?the?cited?authorities?squarely?addressed?a?question?of?the?trial?court’s?jurisdiction?to?proceed?notwithstanding?an?erroneous?failure?to?hold?a?competency?hearing.?The?principal?consideration?was?invariably?limited?to?the?effect?of?section?1368?error?on?the?underlying?judgment?of?conviction;?subsequent?to?Pennington,?supra,?66?Cal.2d?508,?the?cases?simply?adopted?its?”without?jurisdiction”?language?as?a?shorthand?for?reversible?error.?fn.?7?While?the?opinions?occasionally?embellished?the?terminology,?they?never?confronted?the?factual?predicate?to,?and?hence?never?engaged?in,?any?substantial?discussion?or?analysis?of?it.?[4]?”Language?used?in?any?opinion?is?of?course?to?be?understood?in?the?[1?Cal.4th?66]?light?of?the?facts?and?the?issue?then?before?the?court,?and?an?opinion?is?not?authority?for?a?proposition?not?therein?considered.?[Citation.]”?(Ginns?v.?Savage?(1964)?61?Cal.2d?520,?524,?fn.?2?[39?Cal.Rptr.?377,?393?P.2d?689];?Brown?v.?Kelly?Broadcasting?Co.?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?711,?734-?735?[257?Cal.Rptr.?708,?771?P.2d?406].)?[3b]?The?issue?before?us?then?is?one?of?first?impression.?Consequently,?we?must?view?with?caution?seemingly?categorical?directives?not?essential?to?earlier?decisions?and?be?guided?by?this?dictum?only?to?the?extent?it?remains?analytically?persuasive.
As?explained?below,?we?conclude?that?the?failure?to?comply?with?the?mandate?of?section?1368?does?not?effect?a?fundamental?loss?of?jurisdiction,?i.e.,?”an?entire?absence?of?power?to?hear?or?determine?the?case,?an?absence?of?authority?over?the?subject?matter?or?the?parties.?[Citation.]”?(Abelleira?v.?District?Court?of?Appeal?(1941)?17?Cal.2d?280,?288?[109?P.2d?942,?132?A.L.R.?715].)?Rather,?the?trial?court?suffers?an?inability?”to?act?except?in?a?particular?manner,?or?to?give?certain?kinds?of?relief,?or?to?act?without?the?occurrence?of?certain?procedural?prerequisites.”?(Ibid.;?see,?e.g.,?Rodman?v.?Superior?Court?(1939)?13?Cal.2d?262,?269?[89?P.2d?109].)?Thus,?while?the?court?retains?jurisdiction?over?the?cause,?fn.?8?it?acts?in?excess?of?that?authority?in?failing?to?hold?a?competency?hearing.
Our?analysis?begins?with?the?statutory?language,?from?which?we?educe?no?legislative?directive?or?intent?to?oust?the?trial?court?of?subject?matter?jurisdiction?pending?an?evaluation?of?the?defendant’s?competence.?In?pertinent?part,?section?1368,?subdivision?(c),?provides?that?when?the?court?has?expressed?a?doubt?as?to?the?defendant’s?capacity?to?stand?trial?and?has?ordered?a?hearing?thereon,?”all?proceedings?in?the?criminal?prosecution?shall?be?suspended?until?the?question?of?the?present?mental?competence?of?the?defendant?has?been?determined.”?Among?other?definitions,?”to?suspend”?means?”to?cause?(as?an?action,?process,?practice,?use)?to?cease?for?a?time?…?[;]?stay?[as?a?hearing]?….”?(Webster’s?New?Internat.?Dict.?(3d?ed.?1981)?p.?2303.)?The?code?provision?itself?is?thus?not?cast?in?jurisdictional?terms.?Nor?does?the?statutory?scheme?invite?or?accommodate?judicial?imposition?of?such?a?limitation.?For?example,?in?contrast?to?subdivision?(c),?subdivision?(b)?of?section?1368?explicitly?vests?exclusive?authority?in?the?superior?court?to?conduct?the?competency?hearing;?a?municipal?court?may?not?do?so?even?when?the?defendant?is?charged?with?a?misdemeanor.?fn.?9?(In?re?Shaw?(1953)?115?Cal.App.2d?753,?756?[252?P.2d?970];?see?Bean?v.?County?of?Los?[1?Cal.4th?67]?Angeles?(1967)?252?Cal.App.2d?754,?760?[60?Cal.Rptr.?804],?disapproved?on?other?grounds?in?In?re?Underwood?(1973)?9?Cal.3d?345,?348?[107?Cal.Rptr.?401,?508?P.2d?721];?cf.????691,?subd.?(b)?[definition?of?”competent?court”],?777?[delineation?of?state?and?federal?court?jurisdiction];?People?v.?Sanchez?(1942)?21?Cal.2d?466,?471-472?[132?P.2d?810]?[differentiation?between?juvenile?and?superior?court?jurisdiction].)
Subsequent?legislation?buttresses?this?conclusion.?Added?in?1974,?section?1368.1?now?permits?the?trial?court?to?consider?several?types?of?preliminary?legal?matters,?including?demurrers,?suppression?motions,?and?motions?to?dismiss?for?lack?of?reasonable?cause,?”capable?of?fair?determination?without?the?personal?participation?of?the?defendant”?and?notwithstanding?the?pendency?of?a?competency?hearing.?(See?People?v.?Superior?Court?(Hulbert)?(1977)?74?Cal.App.3d?407,?413?[141?Cal.Rptr.?497];?see?also?Jackson?v.?Indiana?(1972)?406?U.S.?715,?740-741?[32?L.Ed.2d?435,?452,?92?S.Ct.?1845].)?These?procedural?changes?necessarily?assume?the?court?retains?subject?matter?jurisdiction?despite?restrictions?on?the?scope?of?its?authority.?(See?also?Hale?v.?Superior?Court?(1975)?15?Cal.3d?221,?227-228?[124?Cal.Rptr.?57,?539?P.2d?817];?cf.?People?v.?Stankewitz?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?72,?87-89?[270?Cal.Rptr.?817,?793?P.2d?23]?[court?may?first?hold?Marsden?hearing?(People?v.?Marsden?(1970)?2?Cal.3d?118?[84?Cal.Rptr.?156,?465?P.2d?44])?to?ensure?effective?assistance?of?counsel?at?competency?hearing].)
Nor?is?there?any?constitutional?imperative?for?imposing?a?jurisdictional?limitation?in?this?circumstance.?In?Jackson?v.?Indiana,?supra,?406?U.S.?715,?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?noted?that,?as?California?now?does?to?a?certain?extent,?”[s]ome?States?have?statutory?provisions?permitting?pretrial?motions?to?be?made?or?even?allowing?the?incompetent?defendant?a?trial?at?which?to?establish?his?innocence,?without?permitting?a?conviction.”?(Id.,?at?p.?741?[32?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?452],?fn.?omitted;?see?also?id.,?at?p.?741,?fn.?30?[32?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?452].)?In?this?regard,?the?high?court?expressly?declined?”to?preclude?the?States?from?allowing,?at?a?minimum,?an?incompetent?defendant?to?raise?certain?defenses?such?as?insufficiency?of?the?indictment,?or?make?certain?pretrial?motions?through?counsel.”?(Id.,?at?p.?741?[32?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?452].)?Moreover,?while?in?Pate?v.?Robinson?(1966)?383?U.S.?375,?387?[15?L.Ed.2d?815,?823,?86?S.Ct.?836],?the?court?emphasized?”the?difficulty?of?retrospectively?determining?an?accused’s?competence?to?stand?trial?…,”?in?Drope?v.?Missouri?(1975)?420?U.S.?162,?182-183?[43?L.Ed.2d?103,?119,?95?S.Ct.?896],?it?accepted?the?possibility?of?a?constitutionally?adequate?posttrial?or?even?postappeal?evaluation?of?the?defendant’s?pretrial?competence.?(See?also?Bishop?v.?United?States?(1956)?350?U.S.?961?[100?L.Ed.2d?835,?76?S.Ct.?440]?(per?curiam)?[judgment?vacated?and?case?remanded?”for?a?hearing?on?the?sanity?of?[the?defendant]?at?the?time?of?his?trial”].)?In?no?case?did?the?[1?Cal.4th?68]?Supreme?Court?suggest?that?substantial?evidence?of?the?defendant’s?incompetence?impaired?or?even?implicated?the?trial?court’s?subject?matter?jurisdiction.
Having?identified?no?statutory?or?constitutional?imperative,?we?turn?to?the?seemingly?entrenched?judicial?gloss?on?which?the?People?premise?their?jurisdictional?argument.?The?precise?passage?spawning?all?subsequent?references?appears?in?Pennington,?supra,?66?Cal.2d?at?page?521:?”In?trying?defendant?without?first?determining?at?a?hearing?his?competence?to?stand?trial,?the?court?both?denied?to?defendant?a?substantial?right?[citations]?and?pronounced?judgment?on?him?without?jurisdiction?to?do?so.”?A?review?of?prior?decisions?reveals?no?similar?”jurisdictional”?characterization?of?the?trial?court’s?failing,?save?for?a?single?oblique?reference?in?People?v.?Vester?(1933)?135?Cal.App.?223,?228?[26?P.2d?685]?[“an?omission?by?the?trial?court?to?exercise?what?may?be?termed?a?jurisdictional?duty?resulted”].?Rather,?earlier?opinions?denominated?the?error?a?”denial?of?substantial?rights”?(see?People?v.?Westbrook?(1964)?62?Cal.2d?197,?204?[41?Cal.Rptr.?809,?397?P.2d?545];?People?v.?Jackson?(1951)?105?Cal.App.2d?811,?816?[234?P.2d?261];?see?People?v.?Vester,?supra,?135?Cal.App.?at?p.?237;?People?v.?Grace?(1926)?77?Cal.App.?752,?762?[247?P.?585])?and?a?”miscarriage?of?justice.”?(See?In?re?Dennis?(1959)?51?Cal.2d?666,?671?[335?P.2d?657];?People?v.?Merkouris?(1956)?46?Cal.2d?540,?553?[297?P.2d?999];?People?v.?Aparicio?(1952)38?Cal.2d?565,?568?[241?P.2d?221];?People?v.?Renteria?(1960)?183?Cal.App.2d?548,?551?[6?Cal.Rptr.?640].)?Some?cases?also?drew?upon?the?statutory?language?in?describing?the?trial?as?”interrupted”?(People?v.?Rothrock?(1936)?8?Cal.2d?21,?24?[63?P.2d?807])?or?”arrested”?(People?v.?West?(1914)?25?Cal.App.?369,?371?[143?P.?793])?pending?outcome?of?the?section?1368?hearing.?(See?also?People?v.?Ah?Ying?(1871)?42?Cal.?18,?21;?People?v.?Grace,?supra,?77?Cal.App.?at?p.?763.)?Thus,?prior?to?Pennington,?supra,?66?Cal.2d?508,?a?substantial?body?of?extant?authority?contained?virtually?no?suggestion?that?section?1368?error?raised?a?jurisdictional?bar.
Closer?analysis?of?Pennington?discloses?no?support?for?a?departure?from?this?settled?law.?In?that?case,?we?reexamined?our?statutory?scheme?in?light?of?the?then?recent?decision?of?Pate?v.?Robinson,?supra,?383?U.S.?375,?in?which?the?federal?high?court?held?that?when?a?defendant?presents?sufficient?evidence,?he?is?”constitutionally?entitled?to?a?hearing?on?the?issue?of?his?competence?to?stand?trial.”?(Id.,?at?p.?377?[15?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?818].)?Failure?to?make?meaningful?inquiry?at?such?a?hearing?deprives?him?of?a?fair?trial.?(Id.,?at?p.?385?[15?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?822].)
Thus?informed?of?its?constitutional?mandate,?this?court?held,?”The?decision?of?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?in?Pate?v.?Robinson?demonstrates?that?[1?Cal.4th?69]?the?type?of?’hearing’?which?due?process?requires?when?the?accused?has?come?forward?with?substantial?evidence?of?present?insanity?has?not?been?accorded?the?accused?when?the?judge?merely?takes?evidence?to?guide?him?in?determining?if?he?should?declare?the?existence?of?a?’doubt’?[as?to?this?question].”?(Pennington,?supra,?66?Cal.2d?at?pp.?520-521.)?Rather,?the?court?must?observe?the?express?terms?of?section?1368,?suspend?further?criminal?proceedings,?and?take?evidence?”to?the?end?of?determining?an?issue?of?fact?and?[making]?a?decision?on?the?basis?of?that?evidence.?[Citation.]”?(Id.,?at?p.?521.)?Accordingly,?we?overruled?prior?decisions?leaving?such?further?inquiry?to?the?trial?court’s?discretion?even?”when?defendant?has?come?forward?with?substantial?evidence?of?present?mental?incompetence?….”?(Id.,?at?pp.?518-519.)
The?holding?in?Pennington,?supra,?66?Cal.2d?508,?was?thus?premised?on?the?fundamental?inequity?implicit?in?the?trial?of?an?individual?unable?to?comprehend?the?proceedings?and?assist?in?his?defense.?Indeed,?expounding?the?point?shortly?thereafter,?we?explained?that?section?1368?error?”goes?to?the?legality?of?the?proceedings?because?’conviction?of?an?accused?person?while?he?is?legally?incompetent?violates?due?process?….’?”?(People?v.?Laudermilk,?supra,?67?Cal.2d?at?p.?282,?quoting?Pate?v.?Robinson,?supra,?383?U.S.?at?p.?378?[15?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?818];?People?v.?Hale,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?539;?see?also?In?re?Dennis,?supra,?51?Cal.2d?at?pp.?672-673?[due?process?requires?defendant’s?mental?as?well?as?physical?presence?at?trial].)?The?United?States?Supreme?Court?has?also?expressly?held?”that?the?failure?to?observe?procedures?adequate?to?protect?a?defendant’s?right?not?to?be?tried?or?convicted?while?incompetent?to?stand?trial?deprives?him?of?his?due?process?right?to?a?fair?trial.”?(Drope?v.?Missouri,?supra,?420?U.S.?at?p.?172?[43?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?113].)
The?principle?underlying?both?the?statutory?scheme?and?the?constitutional?mandate?is?of?ancient?derivation?and?deeply?rooted?in?our?sense?of?basic?fairness:?”?’?”[T]here?may?be?circumstances?lying?in?his?private?knowledge,?which?would?prove?his?innocency,?of?which?he?can?have?no?advantage,?because?not?known?to?the?persons?who?shall?take?upon?them?his?defence.”?’?”?(People?v.?Perry?(1939)?14?Cal.2d?387,?398?[94?P.2d?559,?124?A.L.R.?1123],?quoting?Freeman?v.?People?(N.Y.)?4?Denio?9,?20?[47?Am.?Dec.?216],?quoting?4?Harg.,?State?Trials,?205;?see?In?re?Buchanan?(1900)?129?Cal.?330,?333?[61?P.?1120],?quoting?4?Blackstone’s?Commentaries?24;?see?also?Drope?v.?Missouri,?supra,?420?U.S.?at?p.?171?[43?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?113].)?While?section?1367?et?seq.?”implements?[this]?fundamental?canon”?(People?v.?Laudermilk,?supra,?67?Cal.2d?at?p.?282),?judicial?construction?enforces?it?by?compelling?reversal?in?the?event?of?any?compromise.
It?is?in?this?context?that?Pennington,?supra,?66?Cal.2d?508,?and?its?progeny?must?be?read?and?in?this?sense?that?the?reference?to?loss?of?jurisdiction?must?[1?Cal.4th?70]?be?understood.?The?trial?court?acts?”without?jurisdiction”?because?its?authority?is?constitutionally?and?statutorily?restricted?to?holding?a?competency?hearing?before?proceeding?with?any?other?matters.?When?the?court?fails?to?discharge?this?obligation,?the?resultant?denial?of?due?process?is?”so?fundamental?and?persuasive?that?[it]?require[s]?reversal?without?regard?to?the?facts?or?circumstances?of?the?particular?case.?[Citations.]”?(Delaware?v.?Van?Arsdall?(1986)?475?U.S.?673,?681-682?[89?L.Ed.2d?674,?685,?106?S.Ct.?1431];?see?also?Gideon?v.?Wainwright?(1963)?372?U.S.?335,?344-345?[9?L.Ed.2d?799,?805,?83?S.Ct.?792,?93?A.L.R.2d?733]?[deprivation?of?right?to?counsel?at?trial];?People?v.?Sarazzawski?(1945)?27?Cal.2d?7,?16?[161?P.2d?934]?[denial?of?new?trial?motion?without?reasonable?opportunity?to?be?heard?(??1202)];?see?generally?Arizona?v.?Fulminante?(1991)?499?U.S.?___,?___?[113?L.Ed.2d?302,?331,?111?S.Ct.?1246,?1265?(conc.?opn.?of?Rehnquist,?C.?J.)?[no?harmless?error?review?of?”structural?defect?affecting?the?framework?within?which?the?trial?proceeds”].)
Given?this?historical?and?legal?perspective,?we?discern?no?reasoned?basis?for?finding?that?trial?error,?even?of?this?magnitude,?implicates?jurisdiction?in?any?fundamental?sense.?fn.?10?[5]?”Where?a?…?court?has?power?…?to?proceed?on?the?merits,?that?is?jurisdiction?of?the?proceedings.”?(United?States?v.?Williams?(1951)?341?U.S.?58,?68?[95?L.Ed.?747,?754,?71?S.Ct.?595].)?[3c]?We?therefore?conclude?that?the?trial?court?does?not?lose?subject?matter?jurisdiction?when?it?fails?to?hold?a?competency?hearing,?but?rather?acts?in?excess?of?jurisdiction?by?depriving?the?defendant?of?a?fair?trial.?(See?Abelleira?v.?District?Court?of?Appeal,?supra,?17?Cal.2d?at?p.?290.)?Although?the?[1?Cal.4th?71]?judgment?may?be?a?nullity,?for?double?jeopardy?purposes?the?proceedings?are?not.?fn.?11
- Double?Jeopardy
“The?fundamental?nature?of?the?guarantee?against?double?jeopardy?can?hardly?be?doubted.?Its?origins?can?be?traced?to?Greek?and?Roman?times,?and?it?became?established?in?the?common?law?of?England?long?before?this?Nation’s?independence.”?(Benton?v.?Maryland,?supra,?395?U.S.?at?p.?795?[23?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?716],?citation?and?fn.?omitted.)?[8]?”The?prohibition?is?not?against?being?twice?punished,?but?against?being?twice?put?in?jeopardy;?and?[1?Cal.4th?72]?the?accused,?whether?convicted?or?acquitted,?is?equally?put?in?jeopardy?at?the?first?trial.”?(United?States?v.?Ball,?supra,?163?U.S.?at?p.?669?[41?L.Ed.?at?p.?302].)?[9]?Should?a?defendant?secure?reversal?on?appeal,?however,?criminal?proceedings?are?subject?to?reinstatement.?(United?States?v.?DiFrancesco,?supra,?449?U.S.?at?p.?131?[66?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?342].)
The?scope?of?any?reprosecution?may,?nevertheless,?be?restricted.?Principally,?double?jeopardy?”prohibits?retrial?after?a?conviction?has?been?reversed?because?of?insufficiency?of?the?evidence.?[Citations.]”?(United?States?v.?DiFrancesco,?supra,?449?U.S.?at?p.?131?[66?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?342].)?A?defendant?may?also?raise?the?bar?of?former?conviction?”when?the?first?jury?’was?given?a?full?opportunity?to?return?a?verdict’?on?[a?greater]?charge?and?instead?reached?a?verdict?on?the?lesser?charge.?[Citation.]”?(Price?v.?Georgia?(1970)?398?U.S.?323,?329?[26?L.Ed.2d?300,?305,?90?S.Ct.?1757];?accord,?People?v.?Serrato?(1973)?9?Cal.3d?753,?760?[109?Cal.Rptr.?65,?512?P.2d?289],?disapproved?on?other?grounds?in?People?v.?Fosselman?(1983)?33?Cal.3d?572,?583,?fn.?1?[189?Cal.Rptr.?855,?659?P.2d?1144];?Gomez?v.?Superior?Court?(1958)?50?Cal.2d?640,?647-?649?[328?P.2d?976];?cf.?People?v.?Henderson?(1963)?60?Cal.2d?482,?495-497?[35?Cal.Rptr.?77,?386?P.2d?677]?[no?liability?for?death?penalty?on?retrial?after?sentence?of?life?without?possibility?of?parole].)?[10]?(See?fn.?14.),?[6b]?Accordingly,?to?gauge?the?import?and?application?of?double?jeopardy?principles?in?the?present?context,?we?must?take?careful?measure?of?the?precise?terms?and?circumstances?of?defendant’s?conviction.?fn.?14
As?we?indicated?in?Marks?I,?contrary?to?the?statutory?mandate,?the?jury?failed?to?specify?whether?it?found?defendant?guilty?of?first?or?second?degree?[1?Cal.4th?73]?murder.?(Marks?I,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?1344.)?Section?1157?requires?that?the?trier?of?fact?”must?find?the?degree?of?crime?or?attempted?crime?of?which?[the?defendant]?is?guilty”;?but?prior?to?1949?it?did?not?contain?any?remedy?or?further?directive?in?the?event?of?an?omission.?Because?this?type?of?irregularity?invariably?necessitated?reversal?and?retrial?(People?v.?Dixon?(1979)?24?Cal.3d?43,?51?[154?Cal.Rptr.?236,?592?P.2d?752];?see,?e.g.,?People?v.?Brown?(1945)?69?Cal.App.2d?602,?606?[159?P.2d?686]),?the?Legislature?amended?the?language?to?provide?that?if?the?jury?returned?an?incomplete?verdict,?”the?degree?of?the?crime?or?attempted?crime?of?which?the?defendant?is?guilty,?shall?be?deemed?to?be?of?the?lesser?degree.”?(??1157.)?[11]?The?operation?of?this?proviso?is?categorical?and?conclusive,?”even?in?situations?in?which?the?jury’s?intent?to?convict?of?the?greater?degree?is?demonstrated?by?its?other?actions?….”?(People?v.?McDonald,?supra,?37?Cal.3d?at?p.?382?[second?degree?conviction?notwithstanding?special?circumstance?finding?when?jury?failed?to?specify?degree].)?The?court?has?no?power?to?recall?the?jury?after?its?discharge?or?otherwise?to?rectify?the?deficiency.?fn.?15?(37?Cal.3d?at?pp.?380-383;?cf.?People?v.?Jenkins?(1880)?56?Cal.?4,?7?[trial?court?”can,?at?any?time?while?the?jury?are?before?it,?and?under?its?control,?see?that?[the?verdict]?is?amended?in?form?so?as?to?meet?the?requirements?of?law.”].)
The?law?constrains?reviewing?courts?as?well?as?trial?courts?in?this?regard.?(People?v.?Lamb?(1986)?176?Cal.App.3d?932,?934?[222?Cal.Rptr.?570];?see,?e.g.,?People?v.?Stephenson?(1974)?10?Cal.3d?652,?656?[111?Cal.Rptr.?556,?517?P.2d?820],?disapproved?on?other?grounds?in?People?v.?Pope?(1979)?23?Cal.3d?412,?426,?fn.?16?[152?Cal.Rptr.?732,?590?P.2d?859,?2?A.L.R.4th?1];?People?v.?Morga?(1969)?273?Cal.App.2d?200,?202?[78?Cal.Rptr.?120].)?[6c]?Despite?the?jury’s?special?circumstance?finding?in?this?case,?we?may?not?imply?a?verdict?of?first?degree?murder?in?the?absence?of?an?express?indication?to?that?effect.?(People?v.?McDonald,?supra,?37?Cal.3d?at?p.?382;?People?v.?Thomas?(1978)?84?Cal.App.3d?281,?284?[148?Cal.Rptr.?532].)?To?the?contrary,?we?are?compelled?to?find?on?this?record?”as?a?matter?of?law?…?defendant?was?convicted?of?second?degree?murder.?[Citation.]”?(People?v.?McDonald,?supra,?37?Cal.3d?at?p.?383,?fn.?omitted.)?Accordingly,?that?conviction?controls?our?[1?Cal.4th?74]?assessment?of?the?viability?of?defendant’s?pleas?of?former?acquittal?and?once?in?jeopardy.
Defendant?urges?that?by?operation?of?section?1157?the?law?implicitly?absolved?him?of?first?degree?murder,?thereby?precluding?his?reprosecution?for?that?offense?as?a?”former?acquittal.”?(See?Green?v.?United?States,?supra,?355?U.S.?184.)?We?agree?that?the?legal?effect?of?the?statute?coincides?in?significant?respects?with?an?implied?acquittal:?It?is?a?final?verdict?of?the?lesser?degree?crime?after?a?determination?on?the?merits.?(See?United?States?v.?Martin?Linen?Supply?Co.?(1977)?430?U.S.?564,?571?[51?L.Ed.2d?642,?651,?97?S.Ct.?1349];?cf.?Stone?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?31?Cal.3d?at?p.?516?[“discharge?of?the?jury?without?a?verdict?is?tantamount?to?an?acquittal”?once?jeopardy?attaches].)
For?purposes?of?delimiting?the?scope?of?retrial?after?a?successful?appeal,?however,?such?a?finding?is?generally?contingent?upon?an?implied?or?express?determination?that?the?evidence?failed?to?sustain?the?prosecution’s?case.?fn.?16?By?contrast,?section?1157?renders?a?conviction?of?the?lesser?degree?by?operation?of?law?and?does?not?establish?or?necessarily?imply?an?insufficiency?of?the?evidence?to?convict?of?the?greater?degree.?fn.?17?Indeed,?on?occasion?”form?triumphs?over?substance,?and?the?law?is?traduced”?(People?v.?Johns?(1983)?145?Cal.App.3d?281,?295?[193?Cal.Rptr.?182])?when?the?record?contains?[1?Cal.4th?75]?”clear?and?reliable?evidence?that?the?jury?must?have?actually?found?the?defendant?guilty?of?the?higher?degree?offense.”?(People?v.?Bonillas,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?pp.?802-803?(conc.?opn.?of?Arguelles,?J.);?see,?e.g.,?People?v.?McDonald,?supra,?37?Cal.3d?at?pp.?379-?383;?People?v.?Beamon?(1973)?8?Cal.3d?625,?629,?fn.?2?[105?Cal.Rptr.?681?[504?P.2d?905].)
In?any?event,?we?need?not?decide?the?former?acquittal?issue.?The?overriding?fact?remains?that?in?fixing?a?defendant’s?conviction?at?the?lesser?degree,?section?1157?conclusively?resolves?the?question?of?his?guilt?for?the?greater?degree?crime?in?his?favor?after?trial?for?that?offense.?In?this?circumstance,?controlling?United?States?Supreme?Court?precedents?compel?we?accommodate?a?plea?of?”once?in?jeopardy.”?fn.?18?(??1016.)
In?the?seminal?case?of?Green?v.?United?States,?supra,?355?U.S.?184,?the?defendant?was?charged?with?both?first?and?second?degree?murder;?the?jury?found?him?guilty?of?second?degree?murder?but?failed?to?return?a?verdict?on?first?degree.?Green?secured?a?reversal?of?his?conviction.?The?prosecution?again?charged?him?with?first?degree?murder,?and?the?trial?court?rejected?his?plea?of?double?jeopardy.?On?retrial,?the?jury?convicted?of?the?greater?offense.
The?Supreme?Court?reversed,?relying?on?both?a?finding?of?an?implied?acquittal?and?the?broader?principle?of?once?in?jeopardy.?(Price?v.?Georgia,?supra,?398?U.S.?at?p.?329?[26?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?305].)?With?respect?to?the?latter,?the?high?court?observed?that?”the?jury?was?dismissed?without?returning?any?express?verdict?on?[first?degree?murder]?and?without?Green’s?consent.?Yet?it?was?given?a?full?opportunity?to?return?a?verdict?and?no?extraordinary?circumstances?appeared?which?prevented?it?from?doing?so.?Therefore?it?seems?clear,?under?established?principles?of?former?jeopardy,?that?Green’s?jeopardy?for?first?degree?murder?came?to?an?end?when?the?jury?was?discharged?so?that?he?could?not?be?retried?for?that?offense.?[Citation.]”?(Green?v.?United?States,?supra,?355?U.S.?at?p.?191?[2?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?206];?accord,?Price?v.?Georgia,?supra,?398?U.S.?at?p.?329?[26?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?305].)
We?discern?no?constitutionally?sustainable?logic?or?rationale?by?which?to?distinguish?the?present?case.?To?suggest?defendant?was?not?”in?direct?peril?of?being?convicted?and?punished?for?first?degree?murder?at?his?first?trial”?or?that?he?was?not?”forced?to?run?the?gantlet?once?on?that?charge”?(?Green?v.?United?[1?Cal.4th?76]?States,?supra,?355?U.S.?at?p.?190?[2?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?206])?would?indefensibly?trivialize?”the?heavy?personal?strain”?imposed?by?a?criminal?trial,?particularly?one?for?a?capital?offense.?(United?States?v.?Jorn?(1971)?400?U.S.?470,?479?[27?L.Ed.2d?543,?553,?91?S.Ct.?547]?(plur.?opn.).)?Correspondingly,?”[t]o?be?charged?and?to?be?subjected?to?a?second?trial?for?first-?degree?murder?is?an?ordeal?not?to?be?viewed?lightly.”?(Price?v.?Georgia,?supra,?398?U.S.?at?p.?331?[26?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?306],?fn.?omitted.)?The?prosecution?had?a?full?and?fair?opportunity?to?convince?the?trier?of?fact?of?defendant’s?guilt?for?first?degree?murder.?Although?the?jury?did?return?a?verdict,?it?nevertheless?did?not?convict?him?of?that?charge;?and?by?operation?of?law?its?verdict?became?fixed?at?second?degree?murder.?In?this?circumstance,?the?application?of?double?jeopardy?is?manifest:?”the?first?verdict,?limited?as?it?was?to?the?lesser?included?offense,?required?that?the?retrial?be?limited?to?that?lesser?offense.”?(Id.,?at?p.?327?[26?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?304];?accord,?Bunnell?v.?Superior?Court?(1975)?13?Cal.3d?592,?608?[119?Cal.Rptr.?302,?531?P.2d?1086].)?We?must?perforce?conclude?defendant’s?jeopardy?for?first?degree?murder?terminated?when?the?jury?was?discharged?from?the?guilt?phase?and?a?second?degree?verdict?was?rendered?pursuant?to?section?1157.?(See?also?In?re?Hess,?supra,?45?Cal.2d?at?p.?176;?cf.?Kellett?v.?Superior?Court?(1966)?63?Cal.2d?822,?827-828?[48?Cal.Rptr.?366,?409?P.2d?206]?[??654?precludes?prosecution?for?more?serious?offense?after?defendant?has?been?acquitted?or?convicted?of?lesser?charge].)
The?fact?the?trial?court?committed?reversible?error?at?the?outset?of?the?proceedings?and?defendant?successfully?appealed?his?conviction?on?that?ground?assumes?no?analytical?significance?in?this?context.?When?a?defendant?has?once?endured?the?rigors?of?trial?and?the?jury?fails?to?convict?despite?a?full?opportunity?to?do?so,?he?may?not?be?required?to?face?that?ordeal?again?regardless?of?any?collateral?defects?in?the?original?proceeding.?(Benton?v.?Maryland,?supra,?395?U.S.?at?pp.?796-797?[23?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?717];?see,?ante,?fn.?14;?cf.?United?States?v.?Jorn,?supra,?400?U.S.?at?p.?483?[27?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?555]?(plur.?opn.)?[reprosecution?after?unnecessary?mistrial?subjects?defendant?to?”same?personal?strain?and?insecurity”?even?if?trial?court?is?well?intentioned].)?Moreover,?as?the?court?in?Green?v.?United?States,?supra,?explained?in?rejecting?the?government’s?waiver?argument,?”Green?was?not?convicted?of?first?degree?murder?and?that?offense?was?not?involved?in?his?appeal.”?(355?U.S.?at?p.?193?[2?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?207].)?Here,?the?court?should?have?entered?judgment?on?second?degree?murder,?which?then?would?have?been?the?properly?appealed?conviction?had?defendant?chosen?to?pursue?the?matter.?fn.?19?(See?People?v.?Hughes?(1959)?171?Cal.App.2d?362,?370?[340?P.2d?679];?ante,?fn.?17.)?[1?Cal.4th?77]
We?perceive?no?unfairness?to?the?People?in?our?holding.?The?prosecution?is?not?deprived?of?its?”one?complete?opportunity?to?convict?those?who?have?violated?[the]?laws.”?(Arizona?v.?Washington?(1978)?434?U.S.?497,?509?[54?L.Ed.2d?717,?730,?98?S.Ct.?824];?Burks?v.?United?States,?supra,?437?U.S.?at?p.?16?[57?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?12-13].)?[12]?(See?fn.?20.)?When?the?verdict?is?”deemed?of?the?lesser?degree”?by?operation?of?law,?the?prosecution?bears?at?least?partial?responsibility.?fn.?20?The?consequences?of?an?irregular?verdict?are?well?settled,?and?nothing?precludes?the?prosecution?from?calling?the?deficiency?to?the?court’s?attention?before?it?discharges?the?panel.?fn.?21?(See????1161-1164.)?[6d]?Since?any?failure?to?do?so?results?from?neglect?rather?than?lack?of?notice?and?opportunity?to?be?heard,?the?People’s?right?to?due?process?is?accordingly?not?offended.?(See?United?States?v.?Jorn,?supra,?400?U.S.?at?p.?486?[27?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?557]?(plur.?opn.);?United?States?v.?Ball,?supra,?163?U.S.?at?p.?668?[41?L.Ed.?at?p.?302]?[prosecutor?cannot?”?’take?advantage?of?his?own?wrong’?”];?see?also?Brown?v.?Ohio?(1977)?432?U.S.?161,?165?[53?L.Ed.2d?187,?193,?97?S.Ct.?2221]?[double?jeopardy?guaranty?”serves?principally?as?a?restraint?on?courts?and?prosecutors”].)
[13]?The?United?States?Supreme?Court?has?repeatedly?counseled?against?subjecting?a?defendant?to?further?proceedings?to?allow?the?prosecution?the?opportunity?to?ameliorate?trial?deficiencies,?evidentiary?or?procedural,?that?could?have?been?otherwise?timely?corrected.?(See?Swisher?v.?Brady?(1978)?438?U.S.?204,?215-216?[57?L.Ed.2d?705,?715,?98?S.Ct.?2699];?Ashe?v.?Swenson,?supra,?397?U.S.?at?pp.?446-447?[25?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?477]?[collateral?estoppel];?United?States?v.?Ball,?supra,?163?U.S.?at?p.?667?[41?L.Ed.?at?p.?302]?[prosecutor?cannot?”?’allege[]?his?own?inaccuracy?or?neglect,?as?a?reason?for?a?second?trial’?”];?see?also?Fong?Foo?v.?United?States,?supra,?369?U.S.?141?[erroneous?midtrial?dismissal].)?The?purpose?of?double?jeopardy?”is?[1?Cal.4th?78]?subserved?by?refusing?to?permit?repeated?retrials?of?a?defendant?in?order?to?remedy?errors?of?law?…?made?by?the?trial?court?in?the?course?of?trial.”?(People?v.?Valenti?(1957)?49?Cal.2d?199,?209?[316?P.2d?633];?People?v.?Webb?(1869)?38?Cal.?467,?476;?Mouser?v.?Superior?Court?(1982)?136?Cal.App.3d?110?[186?Cal.Rptr.?21].)?At?the?very?least,?repeated?trials?impermissibly?permit?the?prosecution?to?”gain[]?an?advantage?from?what?it?learns?at?the?first?trial?about?the?strengths?of?the?defense?case?and?the?weaknesses?of?its?own.”?(United?States?v.?DiFrancesco,?supra,?449?U.S.?at?p.?128?[66?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?340];?accord,?Stone?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?31?Cal.3d?at?p.?515.)?This?process?in?turn?encourages?”the?governmental?overreaching?that?double?jeopardy?is?supposed?to?prevent.”?(Ohio?v.?Johnson?(1984)?467?U.S.?493,?502?[81?L.Ed.2d?425,?435,?104?S.Ct.?2536].) [6e]?Moreover,?allowing?reprosecution?for?the?greater?degree?offense?would?essentially?afford?the?People?otherwise?unavailable?recourse?from?the?mandatory?and?conclusive?operation?of?section?1157.?This?result?would?not?only?circumvent?and?contravene?the?statutory?imperative,?it?would?undermine?the?constitutional?impetus?favoring?finality?of?judgments.?”It?has?been?said?that?’a’?or?’the’?’primary?purpose’?of?the?[double?jeopardy?clause]?was?’to?preserve?the?finality?of?judgments,’?[citation]?.?…”?(United?States?v.?DiFrancesco,?supra,?449?U.S.?at?p.?128?[66?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?340];?Arizona?v.?Washington,?supra,?434?U.S.?at?p.?503?[54?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?726-727].)?To?reward?the?prosecution?for?its?inadvertence?would?thus?substantially?subvert?a?multiplicity?of?traditional?double?jeopardy?protections.Accordingly,?guided?by?the?weight?of?precedent?and?the?substantial?policy?considerations?they?reflect,?we?hold?that?when?a?defendant’s?conviction?is?”deemed?to?be?of?the?lesser?degree”?by?operation?of?section?1157,?it?”is?to?be?accorded?constitutional?finality?and?conclusiveness?similar?to?that?which?attaches?to?a?jury’s?verdict?of?acquittal.”?(United?States?v.?DiFrancesco,?supra,?449?U.S.?at?p.?132?[66?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?343].)?If?the?defendant?obtains?a?reversal?of?that?conviction,?he?may?not?be?subject?to?retrial?for?any?more?serious?offense.?fn.?22
- Conclusion
As?its?ancient?lineage?attests,?the?double?jeopardy?clause?is?no?mere?”technicality”;?it?is?an?integral?part?of?”the?framework?of?procedural?protections?which?the?Constitution?establishes?for?the?conduct?of?a?criminal?trial.”?[1?Cal.4th?79]?(United?States?v.?Jorn,?supra,?400?U.S.?at?p.?479?[27?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?553]?(plur.?opn.).)?Effectuating?the?spirit?as?well?as?the?letter?of?its?liberality,?courts?have?”disparaged?’rigid,?mechanical’?rules?in?[its]?interpretation?….?[Citation.]”?(Serfass?v.?United?States,?supra,?420?U.S.?at?p.?390?[43?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?275].)?In?animating?our?own?independent?”vital?safeguard,”?we?have?expressly?refused?to?perpetuate?”spurious?distinction[s]”?at?the?risk?of?”giving?our?constitutional?prohibition?against?twice?in?jeopardy?a?’narrow,?grudging?application’?unsupported?by?either?logic?or?reason.”?(Gomez?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?50?Cal.2d?at?p.?649;?accord,?Green?v.?United?States,?supra,?355?U.S.?at?p.?198?[2?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?210].)
Consistent?with?this?tradition,?we?continue?to?eschew?a?parsing?attitude?unworthy?of?this?”fundamental?ideal?in?our?constitutional?heritage?….”?(Benton?v.?Maryland,?supra,?395?U.S.?at?p.?794?[23?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?716].)?In?amending?section?1157,?our?citizenry?has?demonstrated?its?willingness?on?occasion?to?forgo?exaction?of?the?law’s?full?measure?of?punishment?in?exchange?for?finality?of?judgments?and?fair?play.?We?must?be?no?less?generous?in?applying?clearly?implicated?constitutional?principles;?indeed,?our?function?is?to?enforce?those?principles,?”?’whatever?be?the?words?in?which?the?[legislative]?provision?is?expressed.’?”?(People?v.?Webb,?supra,?38?Cal.?at?p.?479.)
The?double?jeopardy?clause?suffers?no?compromise;?therein?lies?its?strength?and?vitality.?[14]?The?extent?of?our?inquiry?ends?with?its?proper?application:?”Whether?guilty?or?innocent?of?the?offense?with?which?he?[is?charged,?the?defendant?is]?entitled?to?have?his?case?fairly?tried?according?to?the?established?rules?of?law.?As?was?said?by?a?learned?judge,?’Though?unfair?means?may?happen?to?result?in?doing?justice?to?the?prisoner?in?the?particular?case,?yet?justice?so?attained?is?unjust?and?dangerous?to?the?whole?community.’?(Hurd?v.?State,?25?Mich.?405.)?The?doctrine?that?respect?for?the?law?cannot?be?inspired?by?withholding?the?protection?of?the?law?from?those?accused?of?crime?is?one?which?recognizes?no?exceptions.?To?be?watchful?for?the?constitutional?and?individual?rights?of?the?citizen?against?any?encroachment?thereon?is?one?of?the?primary?duties?and?obligations?of?the?courts,?and?it?is?by?unrelenting?watchfulness?and?zeal?in?this?regard?that?the?conviction?of?the?innocent?will?be?averted.”?(People?v.?Mendoza?(1942)?55?Cal.App.2d?625,?633?[131?P.2d?622];?cf.?People?v.?Superior?Court?(Harris)?(1990)?217?Cal.App.3d?1332?[266?Cal.Rptr.?563]?[defendant?may?not?be?retried?for?death?penalty?after?sentence?of?life?without?possibility?of?parole?reversed].)
- Disposition
The?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?is?reversed?with?directions?to?deny?the?People’s?petition?for?writ?of?mandate.?[1?Cal.4th?80]?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Mosk,?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?Kennard,?J.,?Baxter,?J.,?and?George,?J.,?concurred.
FN?1.?Real?party?in?interest?Marks?is?the?defendant?in?the?underlying?criminal?proceeding.?For?clarity,?we?refer?to?him?throughout?the?opinion?as?defendant.
FN?2.?All?further?statutory?references?are?to?the?Penal?Code.
FN?3.?A?jury?found?defendant?guilty?of?murder?(??187)?and?conspiracy?to?commit?murder?(???182/187).?It?found?true?a?financial-gain?special-circumstance?allegation?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(1)),?but?not?true?allegations?of?a?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(15))?and?personal?use?of?a?firearm?(???12022.5,?1203.06,?subd.?(a)(1)).?The?jury?imposed?a?verdict?of?death.
FN?4.?As?in?the?original?information,?defendant?was?charged?with?conspiracy?to?commit?first?degree?murder,?and?he?responded?with?similar?pleas?to?this?count?as?well.?For?convenience,?reference?to?the?conspiracy?count?is?omitted?from?the?discussion?since,?for?analytical?purposes,?it?is?subsumed?within?the?murder?charge.
FN?5.?The?court?struck?the?special?circumstance?allegations?as?”surplusage.”
FN?6.?Preliminary,?the?People?contend?these?statements?are?dispositive?because?they?constitute?the?law?of?the?case.?”The?doctrine?of?the?law?of?the?case?is?this:?That?where,?upon?an?appeal,?the?supreme?court,?in?deciding?the?appeal,?states?in?its?opinion?a?principle?or?rule?of?law?necessary?to?the?decision,?that?principle?or?rule?becomes?the?law?of?the?case?and?must?be?adhered?to?throughout?its?subsequent?progress,?both?in?the?lower?court?and?upon?subsequent?appeal,?…?this?although?in?its?subsequent?consideration?this?court?may?be?clearly?of?the?opinion?that?the?former?decision?is?erroneous?in?that?particular.?[Citations.]”?(Tally?v.?Ganahl?(1907)?151?Cal.?418,?421?[90?P.?1049].)
To?state?the?doctrine?is?to?demonstrate?its?present?inapplicability:?Apart?from?concluding?the?trial?court?committed?reversible?error,?no?other?determination?of?law?was?”necessary?to?the?decision”?in?Marks?I.?In?particular,?we?did?not?resolve?the?question?of?jurisdiction?because?the?facts?did?not?warrant?any?such?discussion?at?that?time.?As?we?explained?in?People?v.?McDonald?(1984)?37?Cal.3d?351?[208?Cal.Rptr.?236,?690?P.2d?709,?46?A.L.R.4th?1011],?in?this?context?the?issue?would?become?ripe?only?if?and?when?the?prosecution?attempted?to?reprosecute?for?the?higher?degree?offense?and?the?defendant?raised?the?bar?of?once?in?jeopardy.?(Id.,?at?p.?383,?fn.?31.)?Those?facts?are?now?before?us,?and?we?must?resolve?them?on?the?merits.
The?Court?of?Appeal?inferred?from?our?omission?in?Marks?I?to?ascribe?”any?postreversal?significance”?to?the?jury’s?failure?to?designate?the?degree?of?murder?pursuant?to?section?1157?that?we?had?sub?silentio?resolved?the?jurisdictional?issue?in?favor?of?the?People.?On?the?contrary,?as?in?People?v.?McDonald,?supra,?37?Cal.3d?at?page?383,?footnote?31,?the?question?was?not?ripe?for?review;?thus?we?implicitly?reserved?the?question?for?such?time?as?the?facts?required?its?resolution.
FN?7.?One?exception?is?People?v.?Laudermilk?(1967)?67?Cal.2d?272?[61?Cal.Rptr.?644,?431?P.2d?228],?discussed?below.?(See?also?People?v.?Bute?(1969)?275?Cal.App.2d?143,?145?[79?Cal.Rptr.?721].)
FN?8.?The?People?contend?only?that?the?trial?court?suffered?a?loss?of?subject?matter?jurisdiction,?not?authority?over?defendant’s?person.?Accordingly,?we?confine?our?consideration?to?this?jurisdictional?component.
FN?9.?On?the?other?hand,?the?municipal?court?does?retain?subject?matter?jurisdiction?over?the?criminal?proceedings?even?during?the?pendency?of?the?competency?hearing.?(See???1368.1,?subd.?(d).)
FN?10.?See,?e.g.,?In?re?Sands?(1977)?18?Cal.3d?851,?857?[135?Cal.Rptr.?777,?558?P.2d?863]?(on?habeas?corpus,?”concept?of?fundamental?jurisdictional?error?…?encompasses?any?error?of?sufficient?magnitude?that?the?trial?court?may?be?said?to?have?acted?in?excess?of?jurisdiction”);?In?re?Griffin,?supra,?67?Cal.2d?at?page?347?(jurisdictional?concept?in?cases?precluding?revocation?of?probation?at?end?of?probationary?term?”is?not?lack?of?jurisdiction?of?the?cause?but?excess?of?jurisdiction”);?In?re?Clark?(1959)?51?Cal.2d?838,?840?[337?P.2d?67]?(modification?of?probation?based?on?same?facts?as?original?probation?”is?in?excess?of?the?jurisdiction?of?the?court”?and?court?”was?without?jurisdiction”?to?make?such?an?order);?In?re?Hess,?supra,?45?Cal.2d?at?page?175?(court?violated?due?process?and?”therefore?acted?in?excess?of?its?jurisdiction”?in?entering?judgment?on?charge?not?contained?in?information?and?not?lesser?included?offense);?Abelleira?v.?District?Court?of?Appeal,?supra,?17?Cal.2d?at?page?291?(“concept?of?jurisdiction?embraces?a?large?number?of?ideas?of?similar?character,?…?some?derived?from?the?requirement?of?due?process”);?Rodman?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?13?Cal.2d?at?page?269?(“it?seems?well?settled?…?that?when?a?statute?authorizes?prescribed?procedure,?and?the?court?acts?contrary?to?the?authority?thus?conferred,?it?has?exceeded?its?jurisdiction”);?see?generally?4?Witkin?and?Epstein,?California?Criminal?Law?(2d?ed.?1989)?Jurisdiction?and?Venue,?section?1828,?page?2165?(“Acts?in?substantial?disregard?of?important?limitations,?or?which?deny?fundamental?rights?or?defenses,?are?in?excess?of?jurisdiction.”).
FN?11.?As?our?prior?decisions?unequivocally?attest,?the?naked?power?conferred?by?subject?matter?jurisdiction?cannot?sanction?a?violation?of?rights.?In?concluding?that?the?trial?court?retains?fundamental?authority?over?the?cause,?in?no?respect?do?we?endorse,?condone,?or?excuse?a?failure?to?comply?with?the?express?mandate?of?section?1368.
FN?12.?Section?1157?provides:?”Whenever?a?defendant?is?convicted?of?a?crime?or?attempt?to?commit?a?crime?which?is?distinguished?into?degrees,?the?jury,?or?the?court?if?a?jury?trial?is?waived,?must?find?the?degree?of?the?crime?or?attempted?crime?of?which?he?is?guilty.?Upon?the?failure?of?the?jury?or?the?court?to?so?determine,?the?degree?of?the?crime?or?attempted?crime?of?which?the?defendant?is?guilty,?shall?be?deemed?to?be?of?the?lesser?degree.”
Throughout?most?of?this?discussion,?we?are?principally?concerned?with?the?operation?and?effect?of?the?second?sentence?by?which?a?crime?is?deemed?of?the?lesser?degree.?Although?we?may?make?reference?to?defendant’s?conviction?for?purposes?of?illustration,?section?1157?is?a?statute?of?general?application,?and?our?analysis?and?conclusions?are?not?reserved?for?murder?or?capital?offenses.
FN?13.?The?double?jeopardy?clause?of?the?Fifth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution?declares,?”nor?shall?any?person?be?subject?for?the?same?offense?to?be?twice?put?in?jeopardy?of?life?or?limb.”?The?federal?guaranty?is?applicable?to?the?states?through?the?Fourteenth?Amendment.?(Benton?v.?Maryland,?supra,?395?U.S.?at?p.?794?[23?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?715-716],?overruling?Palko?v.?Connecticut?(1937)?302?U.S.?319?[82?L.Ed.?288,?58?S.Ct.?149].)?”Thus,?the?minimum?standards?of?double?jeopardy?protection?for?criminal?defendants,?as?enunciated?by?numerous?United?States?Supreme?Court?decisions,?are?binding?on?this?court.?Of?course,?we?remain?free?to?delineate?a?higher?level?of?protection?under?article?I,?section?15?(formerly???13),?of?the?California?Constitution.?[Citations.]”?(Stone?v.?Superior?Court?(1982)?31?Cal.3d?503,?510?[183?Cal.Rptr.?647,?646?P.2d?809].)
FN?14.?We?must?determine?this?question?even?though?defendant?obtained?a?reversal?of?his?conviction?on?appeal.?”[A]ny?error?affecting?the?express?verdict?of?guilty?does?not?affect?the?conclusiveness?of?the?implied?verdict?of?acquittal.?[Citations.]”?(In?re?Hess,?supra,?45?Cal.2d?at?p.?176.)?A?similar?rule?applies?to?a?plea?of?once?in?jeopardy,?i.e.,?a?”former?conviction.”?(Price?v.?Georgia,?supra,?398?U.S.?at?p.?329?[26?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?305];?see?generally?Green?v.?United?States?(1957)?355?U.S.?184,?191-194?[2?L.Ed.2d?199,?78?S.Ct.?221,?61?A.L.R.2d?1119].)?In?this?situation,?the?defendant?is?not?obligated?to?resolve?the?tension?generated?by?invoking?conflicting?constitutional?protections,?but?may?preserve?for?himself?whatever?double?jeopardy?benefits?accrued?in?his?first?trial?notwithstanding?some?fatal?defect?in?the?proceedings.?(Benton?v.?Maryland,?supra,?395?U.S.?at?pp.?796-797?[23?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?717];?Kepner?v.?United?States?(1904)195?U.S.?100,?135?[49?L.Ed.?114,?126-127,?24?S.Ct.?797]?(dis.?opn.?of?Holmes,?J.);?see?Gomez?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?50?Cal.2d?at?pp.?650-653.)?To?conclude?otherwise?would?unduly?impair?the?defendant’s?right?of?appeal.?(See?People?v.?Gilmore?(1854)?4?Cal.?376,?378.)
As?we?explain?below,?our?state?law?requires?and?directs?regularity?in?the?jury’s?verdict.?(??1157.)?The?operation?of?section?1157?thus?determines?what,?if?any,?favorable?results?accrued?under?defendant’s?conviction.?To?say?defendant?may?be?retried?because?he?upset?the?judgment?on?appeal?begs?the?question;?the?constitutionally?permissible?scope?of?any?retrial?depends?upon?an?accurate?denomination?of?that?conviction.?(Cf.?People?v.?Travers?(1887)?73?Cal.?580,?582?[15?P.?293]?[no?double?jeopardy?claim?when???1157?error?required?reversal?of?entire?conviction?(prior?to?1949?amendment?of?statute)];?People?v.?O’Brien?(1933)?129?Cal.App.?660,?662?[19?P.2d?257]?[same].)
FN?15.?Noting?the?rigid?and?”formalistic”?manner?in?which?courts?must?apply?the?statute,?Justice?Arguelles?in?People?v.?Bonillas?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?757?[257?Cal.Rptr.?895,?771?P.2d?844],?invited?the?Legislature?”to?reexamine?the?current?language?and?prevailing?interpretation?of?section?1157?and?to?make?any?modification?in?the?provision?which?it?deems?appropriate.”?(48?Cal.3d?at?p.?804?(conc.?opn.?of?Arguelles,?J.).)?Effective?January?1,?1991,?the?Legislature?amended?section?1164,?subdivision?(b),?to?require?that?”[n]o?jury?shall?be?discharged?until?the?court?has?verified?on?the?record?that?the?jury?has?…?reached?a?verdict?…?on?all?issues?before?it,?including,?but?not?limited?to,?the?degree?of?the?crime?or?crimes?charged?….”?We?emphasize?the?importance?of?this?safeguard?against?nonconforming?verdicts?and?urge?strict?compliance?to?forestall?procedural?quagmires?such?as?the?one?we?labor?through?today.
FN?16.?See,?e.g.,?Smalis?v.?Pennsylvania?(1986)?476?U.S.?140,?144-?145?[90?L.Ed.2d?116,?121,?106?S.Ct.?1745]?(ruling?on?demurrer?at?close?of?prosecution’s?case-in-chief?constituted?finding?”that?as?a?matter?of?law?the?State’s?evidence?is?insufficient”);?Burks?v.?United?States?(1978)?437?U.S.?1,?16?[57?L.Ed.2d?1,?12,?98?S.Ct.?2141]?(implied?acquittal?when?reviewing?court?reversed?for?”failure?of?proof?at?trial”);?United?States?v.?Martin?Linen?Supply?Co.,?supra,?430?U.S.?at?page?572?[51?L.Ed.2d?at?page?651]?(judgments?of?acquittal?following?mistrial?granted?because?evidence?was?”legally?insufficient?to?sustain?a?conviction”);?United?States?v.?Sisson?(1970)?399?U.S.?267,?288-290?[26?L.Ed.2d?608,?623-624,?90?S.Ct.?2117]?(arrest?of?judgment?was?in?reality?postverdict?directed?acquittal?based?on?evidence?adduced?at?trial);?Ashe?v.?Swenson?(1970)?397?U.S.?436,?445[25?L.Ed.2d?469,?476,?90?S.Ct.?1189]?(double?jeopardy?embodies?doctrine?of?collateral?estoppel);?Price?v.?Georgia,?supra,?398?U.S.?at?page?329?[26?L.Ed.2d?at?page?305]?(implied?acquittal?of?first?degree?murder?when?defendant?convicted?of?manslaughter);?Green?v.?United?States,?supra,?355?U.S.?at?page?190?[2?L.Ed.2d?at?page?205]?(implied?acquittal?of?first?degree?murder?when?defendant?convicted?of?second?degree).
FN?17.?Nevertheless,?a?defendant’s?conviction?is?not?”reduced”?by?operation?of?law?since?section?1157?becomes?operative?only?in?the?absence?of?an?express?jury?finding?on?the?degree?of?the?crime.?(Cf.???1181?[on?motion?for?new?trial,?court?may?modify?to?lesser?degree?offense?verdict?that?is?contrary?to?law?or?evidence].)?For?example,?in?this?case?the?original?trial?court,?Judge?Eric?Younger,?entered?an?erroneous?judgment?on?the?assumption?the?jury?had?rendered?a?verdict?of?first?degree?murder,?apparently?because?of?the?special?circumstance?finding.?(People?v.?McDonald,?supra,?37?Cal.3d?at?p.?380.)?When?the?jury?was?discharged?after?submitting?a?nonconforming?verdict,?the?court?should?have?proceeded?in?accordance?with?the?express?provisions?of?section?1157?and?entered?a?judgment?on?second?degree?murder.?Had?the?law?been?compiled?with?in?the?first?instance,?no?implication?would?arise?that?defendant’s?conviction?is?being?”reduced.”
FN?18.?For?the?same?reason,?we?need?not?determine?whether?section?1157?could?be?construed?as?a?directed?verdict,?which?for?double?jeopardy?purposes?operates?in?the?same?manner?and?to?the?same?extent?as?an?implied?acquittal.?(United?States?v.?Martin?Linen?Supply?Co.,?supra,?430?U.S.?at?p.?573?[51?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?652];?Fong?Foo?v.?United?States?(1962)?369?U.S.?141,?143?[7?L.Ed.2d?629,?631,?82?S.Ct.?671].)
FN?19.?This?conclusion?also?avoids?the?potential?for?impairing?the?due?process?right?of?appeal.?(See?North?Carolina?v.?Pearce?(1969)?395?U.S.?711,?724?[23?L.Ed.2d?656,?668-669,?89?S.Ct.?2072].)?”Conditioning?an?appeal?of?one?offense?on?a?coerced?surrender?of?a?valid?plea?of?former?jeopardy?on?another?offense?exacts?a?forfeiture?in?plain?conflict?with?the?constitutional?bar?against?double?jeopardy.”?(Green?v.?United?States,?supra,?355?U.S.?at?pp.?193-?194?[2?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?208],?fn.?omitted;?People?v.?Henderson,?supra,?60?Cal.2d?at?pp.?496-497.)
We?decline?the?People’s?invitation?to?distinguish?the?fact?that?in?this?case?defendant’s?capital?conviction?statutorily?compelled?review.?(??1239,?subd.?(b).)?We?resolve?the?issues?before?us?for?all?defendants?who,?irrespective?of?the?nature?of?their?offense,?may?premise?a?plea?of?once?in?jeopardy?upon?the?operation?of?section?1157.?Moreover,?it?would?be?anomalous?if?not?unconscionable?to?formulate?a?less?favorable?rule?for?those?under?judgment?of?death,?thereby?implicating?equal?protection?as?well?as?due?process.
FN?20.?The?defendant?has?no?obligation?to?bring?the?omission?to?the?court’s?attention.?As?we?have?stated?in?a?related?context,?”When?a?trial?court?proposes?to?discharge?a?jury?without?legal?necessity?therefor,?the?defendant?is?under?no?duty?to?object?in?order?to?claim?the?protection?of?the?constitutional?guarantee?[against?double?jeopardy],?and?his?mere?silence?in?the?face?of?an?ensuing?discharge?cannot?be?deemed?a?waiver.?[Citations.]”?(Curry?v.?Superior?Court?(1970)?2?Cal.3d?707,?713?[87?Cal.Rptr.?361,?470?P.2d?345];?People?v.?Upshaw?(1974)?13?Cal.3d?29,?34?[117?Cal.Rptr.?668,?528?P.2d?756];?cf.?United?States?v.?Scott?(1978)?437?U.S.?82,?98-99?[57?L.Ed.2d?65,?79,?98?S.Ct.?2187]?[jeopardy?not?implicated?by?defendant’s?”deliberately?choosing?to?seek?termination?…?on?a?basis?unrelated?to?factual?guilt?or?innocence”].)
FN?21.?See,?ante,?footnote?15.
FN?22.?Defendant?sought?to?interpose?double?jeopardy?objections?to?his?reprosecution?not?only?on?the?substantive?charges,?but?also?for?the?lying-in-wait?special-circumstance?allegation?and?the?personal?use?of?a?firearm?allegation,?both?of?which?the?jury?originally?found?not?true.?(See,?ante,?fn.?3.)?In?light?of?our?conclusions,?we?need?not?consider?this?contention?with?respect?to?the?lying-in-wait?special?circumstance.?As?to?the?personal?use?of?a?firearm?allegation,?defendant’s?point?is?well?taken:?The?jury’s?rejection?constituted?an?express?acquittal?on?the?enhancement?and?forecloses?any?retrial.?(People?v.?Pettaway?(1988)?206?Cal.App.3d?1312,?1331-1332?[254?Cal.Rptr.?436];?see?People?v.?Asbury?(1985)?173?Cal.App.3d?362,?366?[218?Cal.Rptr.?902].)