Skip to content
Name: Baustert v. Superior Court
Case #: D045823
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 06/01/2005

Appellant was charged with two misdemeanors and had been released on his own recognizance. He entered a general time waiver, but withdrew it at the trial readiness hearing and was therefore entitled to a trial by December 29. The victim in the case, a police officer, was going to be unavailable for trial at that time due to her vacation plans, and the prosecutor moved to continue the trial date, without issuing a subpoena. The court found good cause and continued the trial date over appellant’s objection. The appellate court issued a writ of prohibition preventing the trial court from taking any further action except to dismiss the charges. No good cause existed for the continuance, and therefore appellant’s statutory right to a speedy trial was violated. The prosecutor did not exercise due diligence in serving the officer while she was present; he released her before the trial date before she became unavailable. The fact that a witness has vacation plans is not good cause for a continuance without a showing by the party requesting it that the five Owens criteria (including due diligence) have been met.