1DCA Division 4 Oral Argument - 2026/05/15 - May 15, 2026

argument

1DCA Division 4 Oral Argument - 2026/05/15

California First District Court of Appeal 24 min 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the purpose of the oral argument and which case is being heard?

Unknown 0:16

Good afternoon and please be seated. And I want to start off by thanking council as well as um our court staff and our CHP person here for indulging this special setting on a sunny Friday afternoon. So we're gonna call the one matter that's on calendar, which is the Alberry case. Could we begin with appearances from council, please?

Mardiquin 0:40

Good afternoon, Your Honors. Helen Martin, thanks for deep.

Victoria Ratnikova 0:46

Good afternoon, Victoria Ratnikova for respondent.

Unknown 0:50

Okay, and uh Mister Mardiquin, why don't you um retake the podium and begin by telling us how much If any of your fifteen minutes you'd like to reserve for rebuttal.

Mardiquin 0:59

Thank you. I'd like to reserve three minutes for rebelling, Your Honor.

Unknown 1:02

Okay. We'll put twelve minutes on the clock and you may proceed.

Mardiquin 1:06

Thank you. Uh may it please the court. And I'd also like to start by thanking the court for its flexibility in resetting the matter and also the people. Um I do appreciate that. Uh but I'd like to start with obviously the court's tentative, but what I see is the operative standard for what is conduct um that can be prosecuted and is subject under both a specific and a general statute and is thus subject to the Williamson rule. Um There is a Explanation of that standard in Murphy. That is in both the Montalvo and Lacero court cases, and is also in this court's tentative, where the court says, in effect. The special statute is interpreted as creating an exception to the general statute for conduct. that otherwise could be prosecuted under either statute.

Mardiquin 2:02

And I think that phrase conduct that could be prosecuted under either statute is the operative phrase here, because in this case there was a preliminary hearing. any judicial determination that this defendant could be prosecuted under four ninety point four.

Unknown 2:19

Can I can I stop you for one second?

Mardiquin 2:21

Yes.

Unknown 2:21

I think I know what you're getting at. I just might want to cut to the chase and feel free to tell me I'm wrong if I'm assuming incorrectly where you're going.

Who are the counsel appearing for each side and what are their opening statements?

Unknown 2:29

Okay. I want to focus on that question of prosecuted that you just alluded to. Are we to read it as could be Our we to read could be prosecuted. For purposes of the Williamson rule and the exception that you were alluding to, to mean successfully prosecuted all the way to a conviction. Or Prosecuted, i.e., charged, and maybe barely survived a prelim, which is the case here.

Mardiquin 3:02

I think charged, Your Honor, because the Williamson rule is about what can be prosecuted. It's not about the easiest path to conviction. It couldn't be, because prosecutors can take many paths to conviction. They can make prosecutorial decisions that have You know, that are based on on on things that we that can't be determined.

Unknown 3:20

Well, but what about this though? In your specific case,

Mardiquin 3:23

yes.

Unknown 3:24

Let me ask you this. Let's say we were to agree with you, to change the tentative opinion, we agree with you. I wanna ask you then about what would happen at this point because your your ARB your reply brief to me is a tiny bit unclear on what you think should happen. You say the the uh one eighty two The w plea gets withdrawn and that has to be dismissed. Yes. So then is your theory that he could only be prosecuted for the four eighty eight? Or would you agree that given what you said about could be prosecuted, the four ninety point four could be reinstated by the prosecution? And if so Do you have to agree that your client is? guilty of the four ninety point four in order for your Williamson rule theory

Unknown 4:18

to Obtain to be successful. That's a big question.

Mardiquin 4:23

I got it. I would say yes to part one, no to part two. Yes to part one, um, because he can be prosecuted. I mean, there was a determination that he can be charged under the special statute, which is the four ninety point four. Uh no, uh we he doesn't have to admit guilt to that because that's not the standard from Will from Williams.

Unknown 4:47

It's commonly a commonly prosecutable under both uh is enough.

Mardiquin 4:55

No, I wouldn't say that. Uh the commonly comes into the other standard, which is if someone were convicted of the special statute, they would commonly also be convicted of the general statute, uh which I don't think is uh uh in dispute here.