California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Landrum v. Superior Court, 177 Cal.Rptr. 325, 30 Cal.3d 1, 634 P.2d 352 (Cal. 1981):
While the prosecution's counterattempt to find statutory authorization in section 871 for the magistrate's dismissal of the first complaint is unpersuasive (see discussion, infra), petitioner's chain of reasoning leads to an absurd and unacceptable mode of procedure in the disposition of felony complaints in situations where the 10-court-day limit has been violated. The premise that a magistrate cannot validly dismiss a felony complaint once the 10-court-day limit has been exceeded leads to the conclusion that the only remedy for violation of section 859b is a superior court dismissal. 8 If a valid superior court dismissal is a prerequisite for the refiling of a complaint by the prosecution, then an untimely preliminary examination must be held for the purpose of obtaining a holding order, so that an information can be filed in superior court. That information would be vulnerable to a dismissal motion by defendant (Serrato v. Superior Court, supra, 76 Cal.App.3d 459, 142 Cal.Rptr. 882), but[30 Cal.3d 9] with the valid superior court dismissal order, the prosecution could finally recommence. 9
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.