PC 1203.9, 1473.7: What Does “Full Jurisdiction” Mean?

In 2012, Defendant Eduardo Hernandez entered a no contest plea in San Bernardino County Superior Court to one count of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Penal Code § 245(a)(4) as a felony.  He was then placed on three years of formal probation.

Shortly after being placed on probation, he was deported.

However, he later reentered the United States illegally and in 2014, his probation was reinstated and in 2015, his probation and supervision thereon were transferred to Los Angeles County under Penal Code § 1203.9.

In 2021, Mr. Hernandez filed a motion to vacate his conviction under Penal Code § 1473.7(a)(1) in Los Angeles County, in Long Beach Superior Court.  The case was assigned to Judge Judith Meyer, who our office has great respect for based on many cases in her courtroom over the last 15 years at least.

Judge Meyer ruled that Los Angeles County did not have jurisdiction over the case and directed Mr. Hernandez to refile the motion in San Bernardino Superior Court.

Mr. Hernandez appealed this ruling from Judge Meyer to the California Court of Appeals for the Second District in Los Angeles.

Since the appeal focused only on statutory interpretation, specifically of Penal Code § 1203.9, the Second District began its evaluation by noting that its review was “de novo,” meaning it was not evaluating a sufficiency of the evidence or abuse of discretion issue.  It would evaluate the meaning of Penal Code § 1203.9 itself, anew (“de novo”) again.

Penal Code § 1203.9 addresses a transfer of probation or mandatory supervision to a county where defendant resides when it is not the same county where probation began.  The statute directs the court, before ordering the transfer, to complete its determination of restitution owed by defendant and “[i]n all other aspects, except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e), the court of the receiving county shall have full jurisdiction over the matter upon transfer.”  Penal Code § 1209(a)(3). 

Penal Code § 1209(b) provides that “the receiving county shall accept the entire jurisdiction over the case effective the date that the transferring court orders the transfer.” 

Here, it is the meaning of subdivision (a)(3) of section 1203.9 which is at issue: “the court of the receiving county shall have full jurisdiction over the matter upon transfer.”  The appellate court then identified the real issue: whether “full jurisdiction” removes the authority of the original sentencing court from everything associated with the case, or whether “full jurisdiction” refers only to matters relating to the probationary sentence.

The Second District answered this by saying “full jurisdiction” referred only to probationary matters and that Judge Meyer was correct in directing Mr. Hernandez to refile his motion in San Bernardino County Superior Court. 

The appellate court explained that in reviewing the legislative history of the bill, the bill was intended to end the practice of informal courtesy supervision of probationers by another county, which resulted in thousands of adult probationers being supervised ineffectively.  

Likewise, some probationers were supervised by multiple counties, resulting in wasteful, duplicative monitoring, particularly when one county is supervising a probationer residing in a different county.

Moreover, a motion presented under Penal Code § 1473.7 is “completely disconnected” from the post-sentencing status of the moving party.  It is focused on what happened at and around the time the plea was taken or the verdict reached.  The original prosecuting agency is most knowledgeable to present the People’s position on the motion, given its familiarity with the facts of the case.

Therefore, Judge Meyer was affirmed and the appeal was denied.

We present this article because quite often, we represent clients in motions to vacate and they often have had their probation transferred from one county to another county.  We have filed this motion in the county where probation originated and where probation was transferred.

Sometimes, the county where the case originated refuses to hear the motion and even cites to Penal Code § 1203.9!  This published ruling certainly demonstrates that such judges are wrong.