California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Superior Court, 159 Cal.App.4th 301, 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 462 (Cal. App. 2008):
This conclusion, however, does not end our inquiry because the district attorney filed the petition more than 45 days beyond Small's scheduled release date and we must decide the consequence for the untimely petition. As our high court recently explained, a governmental violation of a mandatory statutory requirement does not necessarily mean a court loses fundamental jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties. (People v. Allen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 91, 101, 64 Cal. Rptr.3d 124, 164 P.3d 557, fh. 5 (Allen).) Rather, if a particular procedural requirement is deemed "mandatory," then noncompliance with the procedural requirement invalidates the governmental action taken in violation of the procedural requirement. (Id. at p. 101, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 124, 164 P.3d 557.) In contrast, if a procedural requirement is deemed "directory," then noncompliance with the procedural requirement will not invalidate the governmental action. (Ibid.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.