Case: Stubblefield v. Superior Court - 6DCA holds that superior court had jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion for release before remittitur to superior court was issued

Decided: 2/5/2025

Docket

Case Overview:

Procedural posture: Petition for writ of mandate from the superior court’s order denying the defendant’s motion for release pending the final outcome of his appeal

Petitioner: Dana Stubblefield

Respondent: Superior Court of Santa Clara County

Sixth District Court of Appeal case no.: H052893

Appeal from: Santa Clara Superior Court

Question:

(1) Does the superior court have jurisdiction over a defendant’s motion for release after the defendant prevailed in his appeal, but before the appellate court issued a remittitur to the superior court?

Answer:

(1) Yes, the superior court has jurisdiction to entertain the defendant’s motion for release in the situation described in the facts below.

The ordinary rule is that the filing of a valid notice of appeal vests jurisdiction in the appellate court until determination of the appeal and issuance of the remittitur. The notice of appeal divests the superior court of jurisdiction over matters affecting the judgment.

Under Code of Civil Procedure § 916(a), however, appellate jurisdiction does not divest the superior court of all power to act. The superior court “may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.”

Additionally, “a trial court’s jurisdiction survives where provided by statute.” Subject to exceptions not applicable in Stubblefield’s case, Penal Code §§ 1272 and 1291 confers jurisdiction on the superior court to handle a defendant’s motion for release pending appeal.

Facts:

In an appeal to the Sixth District Court of Appeal, the defendant successfully challenged his conviction on the ground that the prosecution had violated the Racial Justice Act (RJA). The Sixth District Court of Appeal declared defendant’s conviction legally invalid, vacated his sentence and conviction, and remanded the matter to the superior court to conduct new proceedings consistent with Penal Code § 745. The decision became final in the Sixth District Court of Appeal. The Attorney General petitioned the California Supreme Court for review.

Before the Sixth District Court of Appeal issued a remittitur to the superior court, Stubblefield filed a motion in the superior court seeking release pending the final outcome of his appeal. The superior court denied Stubblefield’s motion on the ground that the superior court lacked jurisdiction because no remittitur had issued.

Outcome:

The Sixth District Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the superior court to vacate its order denying Stubblefield’s motion for release and conduct proceedings to rule on the merits of the motion.

Justice Greenwood authored the opinion, joined by Justices Grover and Lie.

Links:

Westlaw: 2025 WL 400708

Central California Appellate Program: Summary

Earlier decision by the Sixth District Court of Appeal: People v. Stubblefield, 107 Cal. App. 5th 896 (2024), review filed (Feb. 4, 2025)