Full Opinion

Filed 11/3/26 P. v. Pasley CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) THE PEOPLE, C103496 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CF02975) v. DEVIN PASLEY, Defendant and Appellant. After a preliminary hearing, defendant Devin Pasley was held to answer on felony corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition, misdemeanor animal cruelty, and misdemeanor vandalism. Before trial, the People orally dismissed the felony count and the misdemeanor vandalism count. Because the oral dismissal effected an implied amendment to the pleading, Pasley was charged with only a misdemeanor. Accordingly, we conclude the appeal is not properly before this court and transfer the matter back to the appellate division of the superior court. 1 BACKGROUND 1 The People charged Pasley with felony inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition (Pen. Code, 2 § 273.5, subd. (a); count 1), felony cruelty to an animal (§ 597, subd. (a); count 2), and misdemeanor vandalism under $400 (§ 594, subd. (a); count 3). Pasley pled not guilty and moved to reduce the felonies charged in counts 1 (corporal injury) and 2 (animal cruelty) to misdemeanors under section 17, subdivision (b). After a preliminary hearing, the trial court denied Pasley’s motion as to count 1 but granted it as to count 2. Pasley was held to answer on all counts. Before trial, the trial court granted the People’s request to dismiss counts 1 (corporal injury) and 3 (vandalism) for insufficient evidence. The court stated that “[t]hat leaves Count 2 remaining as a misdemeanor.” During discussions about setting a trial date, the People noted that “because it’s a misdemeanor, technically the case will probably transfer to a misdemeanor Judge, so that would be the Judge who would hear the trial.… And we understand that the [trial assignment conference] and the jury trial will be in front of a misdemeanor Judge, just given the case and the way it’s gone along so far.” It does not appear that the case was transferred to the misdemeanor department, and it was assigned to the same judge for trial. The jury found Pasley guilty of misdemeanor animal cruelty. 1 Because we do not reach the merits of the People’s claim, we do not include a summation of the facts. 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Prior to sentencing, the People argued that section 1203.097, subdivision (a) 3 “compels the court to put the defendant on domestic violence probation,” which would require a minimum term of three years of probation. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the People’s motion to impose three years of probation under section 1203.097, subdivision (a), finding the animal cruelty conviction was not one of domestic violence. The court sentenced Pasley to one year of formal probation and imposed and stayed 90 days in county jail, “pending successful completion of probation.” On October 7, 2024, the People filed a timely misdemeanor notice of appeal in the superior court. On April 4, 2025, a different trial court judge found the superior court appellate division lacked jurisdiction, citing California Rules of Court, rule 8.850, 4 and dismissed the case without prejudice. On April 8, 2025, this court received notification of filing of a notice of appeal, along with a declaration and order regarding erroneous filing indicating that the misdemeanor notice of appeal should be processed as a felony notice of appeal. DISCUSSION The People claim the trial court erred by failing to impose probation conditions set forth under section 1203.097 because the animal cruelty conviction involved domestic violence. Pasley asserts that we do not have jurisdiction because this is a misdemeanor 3 Section 1203.097, subdivision (a) provides specific probation conditions for crimes of domestic violence. 4 Subsequent rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 3 case, and the case should therefore be dismissed. 5 We agree with Pasley that we lack jurisdiction but disagree that the case must be dismissed. In arguing “[t]he Butte County Superior Court misinterpreted the difference between a felony and misdemeanor case for purposes of determining appellate court jurisdiction,” Pasley relies on People v. Scott (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 525 (Scott), which explains the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to hear criminal cases. As discussed in Scott, rule 8.304 “governs the filing of appeals in the Court of Appeal. Subdivision (a) provides in pertinent part, ‘(1) To appeal from a judgment or an appealable order of the superior court in a felony case … the defendant or the People must file a notice of appeal in that superior court.… [¶] (2) As used in (1), “felony case” means any criminal action in which a felony is charged, regardless of the outcome.… [It] includes an action in which the defendant is charged with: [¶] (A) A felony and a misdemeanor or infraction, but is convicted of only the misdemeanor or infraction; [¶] (B) A felony, but is convicted of only a lesser offense; or [¶] (C) An offense filed as a felony but punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor, and the offense is thereafter deemed a misdemeanor under … section 17(b).’ ” (Scott, at p. 529, italics omitted.) Section 1235, subdivision (b) similarly provides that “[a]n appeal from the judgment or appealable order in a felony case is to the court of appeal for the district in which the court from which the appeal is taken is located.” A “ ‘[f]elony case’ means a criminal action in which a felony is charged and includes a criminal action in which a misdemeanor or infraction is charged in conjunction with a felony.” (§ 691, subd. (f).) A “ ‘[m]isdemeanor or infraction case’ means a 5 Pasley asserts that dismissal is required because “the case is not cognizable at either the superior court or appellate court level.” Given our conclusion that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we do not consider the merits and express no opinion about the issues the parties may raise on appeal. 4 criminal action in which a misdemeanor or infraction is charged and does not include a criminal action in which a felony is charged in conjunction with a misdemeanor or infraction.” (§ 691, subd. (g).) In Scott, the defendant was held to answer on one felony count after a preliminary hearing. (Scott, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 527.) The People subsequently filed an information that charged the defendant with one felony and three misdemeanors, making the case a felony case under rule 8.304. (Ibid.) Four days later, the trial court granted the People’s request to dismiss the felony count, and the defendant pled not guilty to the misdemeanors. (Id. at pp. 527-528.) The case was set for trial in a misdemeanor department, and on the first day of trial, the People filed an amended complaint, charging the defendant with three misdemeanors. (Id. at p. 528.) The jury found the defendant guilty of the misdemeanors, and the defendant filed a misdemeanor notice of appeal and other misdemeanor appellate forms. (Id. at pp. 528, 533.) The Court of Appeal “questioned whether appellate jurisdiction was vested in this court or the appellate division of the superior court.” (Scott, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 528.) 6 The court reviewed section 691, rule 8.304, and the Advisory Committee comment to the rule and cases cited therein, and concluded that the appellate division of the superior had appellate jurisdiction. (Scott, at pp. 528-529, 534.) Noting that the People had filed an amended pleading charging only misdemeanors, the court explained: “At this point, [the defendant] stood charged with misdemeanors and no felony counts. It is axiomatic that for all intents and purposes this is a case in which [the defendant] was not charged with a felony. Based on … a close reading of the Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.304 [and the cases cited therein], we are convinced that the ‘regardless of the outcome’ language in rule 8.304 does not extend to cases wherein the felony count 6 The opinion in Scott does not explain how the appeal made its way to the Court of Appeal. 5 is dismissed entirely, because in this situation there is no ‘prosecution.’ ” (Id. at p. 532.) It further explained that an amended pleading supersedes the original, and the original is set aside and abandoned. (Id. at pp. 532-533.) The court also noted that “[t]he superior court recognized that this was a misdemeanor case and set the trial in a misdemeanor department. [The defendant’s] trial counsel recognized that this was a misdemeanor case and filed a misdemeanor notice of appeal” and other misdemeanor appeal forms. (Id. at p. 533.) Because the effective pleading charged only misdemeanors, the court held that the appeal was not properly before it and transferred the case to the appellate division of the superior court. (Id. at p. 534.) We agree with Pasley that Scott is analogous here. Like Scott, Pasley was charged with a felony and two misdemeanors and held to answer on these charges following a preliminary hearing. Before trial, the trial court granted the People’s oral request to dismiss the felony and one of the misdemeanor charges, leaving a sole misdemeanor charge. Though the People did not file an amended pleading charging only the remaining misdemeanor, we conclude the oral dismissal effectively amended the pleading. (People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 960 [“not every amendment to a pleading … need be made in writing”]; People v. Sandoval (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 111, 133 [“California law does not attach any talismanic significance to the existence of a written information”].) Thus, as in Scott, the amended pleading charged Pasley only with a misdemeanor. Indeed, similarly to Scott, the People initially filed a misdemeanor appeal. Accordingly, we conclude this is a misdemeanor case. Having determined Pasley had been effectively charged with only one misdemeanor, the appeal is not properly before this court under rule 8.304. Accordingly, this matter must be transferred to the appellate division of the Butte County Superior Court for disposition. 6 DISPOSITION This case is hereby transferred to the appellate division of the Butte County Superior Court. (Gov. Code, § 68915.) /s/ BOULWARE EURIE, J. We concur: /s/ MAURO, Acting P. J. /s/ MESIWALA, J. 7