Summary Facts of Case:

In this case, the defendants own and operate California Alternative Medical Center, where they provide medical marijuana to patients with medical conditions. According to case details, the defendants operated their business shortly after Proposition 215 was proposed and intended to distribute marijuana to only certified and approved patients and caregivers. Proposition 215, known as the Compassionate Use act of 1996, exempted patients and caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for medical treatment recommended by a physician.

While the defendants attempted to receive legal advice on how to cover themselves and their business and attempted to reach out to the chief of police and city attorneys to approve their business, in early 2000, sting operations were attempted to buy marijuana from the defendants, soon succeeding, allowing charges on three counts of felony possession of marijuana.

In a motion filed by the people, ensuing the preliminary hearing, the People contended that probable cause existed that each defendant sold marijuana as charged and maintained that Proposition 215 did not legalize the sale of marijuana to qualified patients or caregivers. The people citedPeople ex rel.Lungren v. Peron (1997)59 Cal.App.4th 1383,70 Cal.Rptr.2d 20(Peron), a case in which concluded that Proposition 215 did not create, for such persons, any exception to Health and Safety Code section 11360's proscription against the sale of marijuana andPeople v. Trippet(1997)56 Cal.App.4th 1532,66 Cal.Rptr.2d 559(Trippet) which similarly concluded that Proposition 215 did not create, for such persons, any exception to Health and Safety Code section 11360's related proscription against the transportation of marijuana.

In papers filed by defendants, they opposed by claiming that proposition 215 should be construed to legalize the sale of marijuana to qualified patients and primary caregivers, by creating an exception to Health and Safety Code 11360, which prohibits selling, giving away, or importing into the state, or transporting for sale, any amount of marijuana or concentrated cannabis, without a state license and any required local licenses. In support of their argument, the defendants relied upon the dictum in Peron, which stated that a qualified primary caregiver would not violate Health and Safety code section 11360.

The complaint was originally rejected, for denial of equal protection and due process and upon illegitimate reasoning for the indictment. However, despite the denial, the people took the verdict to the Court of Appeal to order the magistrate to reinstate the complaint, under Superior court section 871.5, "to compel the magistrate to reinstate the complaint." Under penal Code section 871, the evidence presented during the preliminary hearing, a magistrate must dismiss a complaint that's charging a felony " if... It appears either that no public offense has been committed or that there is not sufficient cause to believe the defendant is guilty of a public offense." Under section 1385, the magistrate may also dismiss such a complaint of his or her own motion upon the application of the prosecuting attorney... In furtherance of justice. ( 1385, subd. (a).).

If the superior court orders the magistrate to reinstate the complaint and if on remand the magistrate orders the defendant committed and information subsequently are filed charging the defendant with felon in question, the defendant may move in superior court to set aside the information under section 995 on the ground that he or she "had not been legally committed by the magistrate or had been committed without reasonable or probable cause (995, subd. (a) (2).).

The supreme court reversed the Court of Appeals decision, as it concluded that the Superior Court ruling on a motion to set aside information under section 995 is authorized to review a prior order compelling the magistrate to reinstate the complaint and may do so without violating the Constitutional rights.

Issue:

In this case, three issues are addressed relating to the pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings.

(1). Is the supreme court allowed to set aside information under section 995, "he or she 'had not been legally committed by the magistrate or had been committed without reasonable or probable cause (995, subd. (a) (2).). ", without violating the California constitution?

(2). Does the magistrate have the authority to dismiss a complaint of a felony after the preliminary examination?

(3.) Can a Superior court judge review a prior superior court judge's order?

Whatistherule,Analysis,andconclusion, using an objective brief style?