BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1932
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 1, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 1932 (Jones) - As Introduced: February 19, 2014
PROPOSED CONSENT
SUBJECT : Appellate Division Decisions
KEY ISSUE : Should judgments rendered by the appellate division
of the superior courts contain a brief statement of the reasons
for the judgment?
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill would require that, when a case is
appealed to the appellate division of the superior court, the
judgment of the appellate division shall contain "a brief
statement of the reasons for the judgment." Under this bill,
merely stating that the decision on appeal is either "affirmed"
or "reversed" will be "insufficient." The appellate division of
the superior court - not to be confused with the District Courts
of Appeal - takes appeals from limited civil cases, infractions,
and some misdemeanors. (The Courts of Appeal, on the other
hand, generally take appeals from civil cases involving greater
amounts in controversy or more serious crimes.) Existing
statutory law says very little about how the appellate division
should operate, but instead requires the Judicial Council to
promulgate rules of court governing the practice and procedures
of the appellate division. One of the rules - Rule 8.887 -
expressly states that appellate division judges "are not
required" to prepare a written opinion "but may do so when they
deem it advisable or in the public interest." The author and
sponsor, the Conference of the California Bar Associations,
claim that too often these orders simply state that the decision
has been "affirmed" or "reversed," leaving litigants with little
understanding of why they won or lost their case. There is no
registered opposition to this bill.
SUMMARY : Requires a judgment of the appellate division (of
superior court) in an appeal to contain a brief statement of the
reasons for the judgment. Specifies that a judgment stating
only "affirmed" or "reversed" is insufficient.
AB 1932
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes in every county, and city and county, an appellate
division of the superior court that has jurisdiction on appeal
in all cases in which an appeal may be taken to the superior
court or the appellate division of the superior court, except
where the appeal is a retrial in the superior court.
Authorizes the presiding judge to convene the appellate
division as necessary. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 77.)
2)Requires the Judicial Council to promulgate rules concerning
the practices and procedures of the appellate division. (Code
of Civil Procedure Section 77(g); California Rules of Court,
Rules 8.800-8.1125.)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : Sponsored by the Conference of California Bar
Associations, this bill would require that a judgment rendered,
on appeal, by the appellate division of the superior court must
contain "a brief statement of the reasons for the judgment."
The bill expressly states that merely stating that the decision
is either "affirmed" or "reversed" will not be sufficient. The
appellate division of the superior court - not to be confused
with the District Courts of Appeal - takes appeals from limited
civil cases with small amounts in controversy, infractions, and
some misdemeanors. (The Courts of Appeal, on the other hand,
generally take appeals from civil cases involving greater
amounts in controversy or more serious crimes.) Existing
statutory law says very little about how the appellate division
should operate, and nothing about the content of the decision.
Instead, the existing statute requires the Judicial Council to
promulgate rules to govern the practice, procedure, and business
of the appellate division.
Of particular relevance to this bill, California Rule of Court
8.887 expressly states that appellate division judges "are not
required" to prepare a written opinion in any case "but may do
so when they deem it advisable or in the public interest."
[Emphasis added.] The author and sponsor, however, contend that
too often these orders simply state that the decision has been
"affirmed" or "reversed," and has provided the Committee with an
example of such an order. Apparently, judges in the appellate
division already issue tentative rulings to help the parties
AB 1932
Page 3
focus their oral arguments in court. Based on the sample of
tentative rulings that the author provided to the Committee,
these brief explanations range from not less than two lines to
not more than eight lines. Most were about two sentences long
and none were more than a short paragraph. However brief, these
concise, to-the-point statements explain why the appellate
division either affirmed or reversed. For example, the shortest
simply reads:
"AFFIRM: The information provided to the officer from an
eyewitness justified a temporary detention to investigate
whether the appellant was intoxicated."
If the tentative rulings can provide a brief statement, the
author and sponsor contend, the final order could, and should,
similarly explain why the superior court ruling was affirmed or
reversed. It is not entirely clear to the Committee whether or
not the one-word example provided by the author and sponsor are
representative of what most appellate division judges do, or if
most judges already provide a brief explanation of their
decisions. If judges typically already provide a brief
statement, then this bill will have little effect. Presumably,
however, this measure may require the Judicial Council to amend
Rule 8.887, which expressly states that a written opinion is not
required.
Additional Burden on Courts Seemingly Not Great : When the
sponsor circulated this proposal to its members, most
acknowledged the usefulness and fairness of the proposal but
some questioned whether it is wise, in these times of budget
constraints, to impose an additional burden on the courts. The
author contends, however, that burdens of time and cost will be
negligible. First, even the one-word decisions must be printed
and mailed, and a few sentences will not increase this cost
substantially, if at all. Second, the author points out that
judges already prepare tentative rulings and, in most cases,
will have already written notes and statements of their
reasoning during the course of considering the matter. The
benefit to the litigants and enhanced public respect for the
courts, the author maintains, will more than offset these
relatively minor costs.
Although the California Judicial Council has not taken an
official position on this bill, it has informed the Committee
that it is "supportive of the underlying rationale for the bill,
AB 1932
Page 4
and agrees that providing a brief statement of reasons for
judgments issued by the appellate divisions of superior courts
should help increase the public's trust and confidence in the
judicial system." However, the Judicial Council "also
recognizes the potential for increased workload for at least
some of the trial courts, which comes at an especially difficult
time for our justice system in light of the ongoing and severe
budget constraints the courts are facing. In addition, the
Judicial Council is mindful of the fact that not all trial
courts have dedicated judicial officers or permanent judges
assigned to their appellate divisions, and that in at least one
court, judges volunteer to sit on the appellate division to hear
those cases in addition to their usual assignments."
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to author, a significant number
of litigants in the smaller cases that are appealed to the
appellate division "are self-represented, and have no idea how
or why the appellate division reached its decision. Decisions
without explanation tend to make these litigants believe the
court did not give them due consideration because of their
self-represented status. While the appeals in question don't
necessarily involve the most serious cases, they do have
considerable implications for the individuals involved." As to
any potential concern that this bill will impose an additional
burden on the court, the author believes that "the value of any
additional time or effort expended in providing even a cursory
explanation of the decision should be more than offset by
enhanced public respect for the courts."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Conference of California Bar Associations
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334