Cal. Codes » Penal Code / PART 2. OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE / TITLE 10. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS / CHAPTER 8. Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise
California Codes

Cal. Penal Code § 1387 (2026)

Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)An order terminating an action pursuant to this chapter, or Section 859b, 861, 871, or 995, is a bar to any other prosecution for the same offense if it is a felony or if it is a misdemeanor charged together with a felony and the action has been previously terminated pursuant to this chapter, or Section 859b, 861, 871, or 995, or if it is a misdemeanor not charged together with a felony, except in those felony cases, or those cases where a misdemeanor is charged with a felony, where subsequent to the dismissal of the felony or misdemeanor the judge or magistrate finds any of the following:

(1)That substantial new evidence has been discovered by the prosecution that would not have been known through the exercise of due diligence at, or prior to, the time of termination of the action.

(2)That the termination of the action was the result of the direct intimidation of a material witness, as shown by a preponderance of the evidence.

(3)That the termination of the action was the result of the failure to appear by the complaining witness, who had been personally subpoenaed in a prosecution arising under subdivision (e) of Section 243, or Section 273.5, 273.6, or 261, where the complaining witness is the spouse of the defendant, or former Section 262. This paragraph shall apply only within six months of the original dismissal of the action, and may be invoked only once in each action. This section does not preclude a defendant from being eligible for diversion.

(4)That the termination of the action was the result of the complaining witness being found in contempt of court as described in subdivision (b) of Section 1219 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This paragraph shall apply only within six months of the original dismissal of the action, and may be invoked only once in each action.

(b)Notwithstanding subdivision (a), an order terminating an action pursuant to this chapter is not a bar to another prosecution for the same offense if it is a misdemeanor charging an offense based on an act of domestic violence, as defined in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 13700, and the termination of the action was the result of the failure to appear by the complaining witness, who had been personally subpoenaed. This subdivision shall apply only within six months of the original dismissal of the action, and may be invoked only once in each action. This subdivision does not preclude a defendant from being eligible for diversion.

(c) An order terminating an action is not a bar to prosecution if a complaint is dismissed before the commencement of a preliminary hearing in favor of an indictment filed pursuant to Section 944 and the indictment is based upon the same subject matter as charged in the dismissed complaint, information, or indictment.

However, if the previous termination was pursuant to Section 859b, 861, 871, or 995, the subsequent order terminating an action is not a bar to prosecution if:

(1)Good cause is shown why the preliminary examination was not held within 60 days from the date of arraignment or plea.

(2)The motion pursuant to Section 995 was granted because of any of the following reasons:

(A)Present insanity of the defendant.

(B)A lack of counsel after the defendant elected to self-represent rather than being represented by appointed counsel.

(C)Ineffective assistance of counsel.

(D)Conflict of interest of defense counsel.

(E)Violation of time deadlines based upon unavailability of defense counsel.

(F)Defendant’s motion to withdraw a waiver of the preliminary examination.

(3)The motion pursuant to Section 995 was granted after dismissal by the magistrate of the action pursuant to Section 871 and was recharged pursuant to Section 739.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 87 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: United States v. Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “After the government filed an information that revived all the counts in the second complaint, the defendant moved to dismiss the kidnapping, robbery, and receiving stolen property counts under California Penal Code § 1387, which bars prosecution for crimes that have been…”
Paredes v. Superior Court, 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 350 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “Code, §§ 1382, 1387), then refiled (Pen. Code, § 1387) and assigned to the same judge to whom it had been previously reassigned.”
Bellizzi v. Superior Court, 524 P.2d 148 (Cal. 1974). · cites it 4× “[4] An order for the dismissal of a felony action made before jeopardy has attached is not a bar to further prosecution (Pen. Code, § 1387), and upon refiling the 60-day time period within which to bring defendant to trial (Pen.”
Burris v. Superior Court, 103 P.3d 276 (Cal. 2005). “, KENNARD, BAXTER, CHIN, BROWN, and MORENO, JJ. NOTES [1] All subsequent unlabeled statutory references are to the Penal Code.”
People v. Juarez, 366 P.3d 989 (Cal. 2016). “Penal Code section 1387 generally permits a felony charge to be dismissed and refiled once, but not twice.”
People v. Hill, 691 P.2d 989 (Cal. 1984). · cites it 2× “Penal Code section 1387 permits felony charges once dismissed on statutory speedy trial grounds to be refiled, and the district attorney did so on November 3 on all counts.”
Higgason v. Superior Court, 170 Cal. App. 3d 929 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “ression motion brought in relation to a warrantless search — not a happy prospect for overworked trial judges, who under current law can only yawn and say, "So what?" Finally, the direction to suppress the evidence with no clear holding as to the validity of the search will…”
People v. Beasley, 5 Cal. App. 3d 617 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “Indeed, Penal Code section 1387 expressly provides: "An order for the dismissal of the action, made as provided in this chapter [which includes ง 1385], is a bar to any other prosecution for the same offense if it is a misdemeanor, but not if it is a felony.”
United States v. Damion Sleugh, 896 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2018). “4th 210, 218 (2008) (observing that Cal. Penal Code § 1387 “generally provides a ‘two dismissal’ rule” precluding prosecutors from refiling certain charges only after the same charges have been dismissed twice already “according to the provisions of that statute”).”
People v. Traylor, 210 P.3d 433 (Cal. 2009). “Penal Code section 1387, subdivision (a) (section 1387(a)) 1 sets forth circumstances under which the dismissal of a criminal action will bar further prosecution.”
People v. Manina, 45 Cal. App. 3d 896 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 3× “Upon such notice, the statute requires that the defendant shall be brought to trial within 90 days; if not so brought to trial the action, upon the defendant’s motion, shall be dismissed.”
People v. Carreon, 59 Cal. App. 4th 804 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “is a bar to any other prosecution for the same offense if it is a felony or if it is a misdemeanor charged together with a felony and the action has been previously terminated.”
Show all 87 citing cases →
Cal. Penal Code § 1387(a): 1 case
Strunk v. Gastelo (S.D. Cal. 2019).
Cal. Penal Code § 1387(a)(1): 1 case
Bulgin v. State, 912 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 2005).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.