Wednesday, December 17, 2025
Page 3
Law’s Reference to Transfer of ‘Full Jurisdiction’ Is Not to Be Construed in Absolute Sense—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Los Angeles Superior Court is the appropriate body act on a motion to dismiss two felony convictions that were suffered here notwithstanding probationary supervision having been transferred to, and completed in, San Diego County, the Court of Appeal for this district declared yesterday, finding inapplicable a statute that says “full jurisdiction” becomes vested in “the court of the receiving county.”
Justice Brian M. Hoffstadt of Div. Five authored the unpublished opinion which eschews a literal interpretation of the statute. It reverses an order by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Olivia Rosales denying a petition by Jonathan Ramirez seeking relief pursuant to Penal Code §1203.4.
Under that section, where a defendant successfully completes a term of probation, a judge may, in the interests of justice, “dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant.”
Rosales denied the petition without prejudice to it being refiled in the San Diego Superior Court. But that court had already denied the petition on the theory that jurisdiction lies in Los Angeles, an action that followed an earlier denial here based on the belief that the matter belonged in the county to the south.
Penal Code §1203.9
Penal Code §1203.9 provides that, in general, “whenever a person is released on probation or mandatory supervision, the court, upon noticed motion, shall transfer the case to the superior court in any other county in which the person resides permanently with the stated intention to remain for the duration of probation or mandatory supervision.” Uncertainty is created by declarations that the county to which there is a transfer “shall accept the entire jurisdiction over the case” and that “the court of the receiving county shall have full jurisdiction.”
Notwithstanding that language, Hoffstadt declared:
“[W]here, as here, probation has been completed and a defendant is seeking relief from the underlying conviction, venue lies in the county of conviction.”
2023 Decision
The justice pointed to the June 22, 2023 decision by this district’s Div. Eight in People v. Hernandez. The defendant, Eduardo Hernandez. had entered a no-contest plea to assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury and was sentenced to three years of probation, with supervision transferred to Los Angeles where he resided.
Hernandez made a motion in Los Angeles Superior Court, pursuant to Penal Code §1473.7, to vacate his plea on the ground that he had not been advised of the immigration consequences. Judge Judith L. Meyer determined that the motion should be made in San Bernardino, and the Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Presiding Justice Maria E. Stratton, affirmed,
“We conclude, as did the trial court, that appellant should have filed his motion to withdraw his plea in the county where he was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced,” she wrote.
Stratton explained that the transfer of “full jurisdiction” under §1203.4 is “intended to apply to all issues arising out of out-of-county supervision” and that “[a] motion presented under section 1473.7 is completely disconnected from the post-sentencing status of the moving party.”
Same Rationale
Hoffstadt wrote:
“This same logic applies here: The relief defendant seeks under section 1203.4 is directed at his underlying conviction rather than the implementation and oversight of his now-long-expired probation; venue lies in Los Angeles County as the county of conviction.”
The case is People v. Ramirez, B345873.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company