Dismissals: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with " ==Number of dismissals== ===Felony=== Whether to allow a third refile would be litigated under PC1387 and PC1387.1. Miller v. Superior Court (2002) discusses what's "excus...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Whether to allow a third refile would be litigated under PC1387 and PC1387.1. Miller v. Superior Court (2002) discusses what's "excusable neglect" and that prosecutor has burden of proof that there was excusable neglect. by a preponderance of the evidence. People v. Rodriguez (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 326, seems to "excusable neglect" is meant for clerical errors, not for legal errors, because the remedy for legal errors is an appeal. | Whether to allow a third refile would be litigated under PC1387 and PC1387.1. Miller v. Superior Court (2002) discusses what's "excusable neglect" and that prosecutor has burden of proof that there was excusable neglect. by a preponderance of the evidence. People v. Rodriguez (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 326, seems to "excusable neglect" is meant for clerical errors, not for legal errors, because the remedy for legal errors is an appeal. | ||
[https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F085382.PDF Barron v. Superior Court (Apr. 13, 2023, F085382)] | |||
===Misdemeanor=== | ===Misdemeanor=== | ||
Revision as of 18:52, 14 April 2023
Number of dismissals
Felony
Whether to allow a third refile would be litigated under PC1387 and PC1387.1. Miller v. Superior Court (2002) discusses what's "excusable neglect" and that prosecutor has burden of proof that there was excusable neglect. by a preponderance of the evidence. People v. Rodriguez (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 326, seems to "excusable neglect" is meant for clerical errors, not for legal errors, because the remedy for legal errors is an appeal.
Barron v. Superior Court (Apr. 13, 2023, F085382)