skip to Main Content
Name: Daws v. Superior Court (People)
Case #: A157383
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 11/14/2019
Summary

Trial courts have inherent authority to determine by local rule or as a matter of courtroom practice what “proper notice” under Penal Code section 1382 means, so long as a defendant’s speedy trial rights are protected. In November 2018, Daws was charged with misdemeanor offenses. At arraignment he gave a time waiver. At a pretrial conference, Daw’s attorney gave verbal notice that Daws was withdrawing his time waiver and invoking his speedy trial right. The trial court rejected his request, explaining that two days written notice to the prosecution was required before withdrawing a time waiver in open court. No written request was made, but 30 days after the oral notice, Daws filed a motion to dismiss. His motion was denied. Daws petitioned for writ of mandate, arguing the oral notice to withdraw a time waiver is proper. Held: Writ denied. A defendant has a right to a speedy public trial (U.S. Const., Sixth Amend.; Calif. Const., art. I, § 15). A defendant charged with a misdemeanor must be brought to trial within 30 days of his arraignment or plea if he is in custody, or within 45 days is he is not in custody (Pen. Code, § 1382). A defendant may waive his speedy trial right and withdraw the waiver at a later time in open court, whereupon a trial date shall be set within 30 days of the withdrawal and all parties properly notified of that date. Section 1382 does not mandate a particular notice rule. In the absence of a uniform statewide rule or a local rule of court, individual trial courts are empowered to determine what type of notice is reasonable in light of local practice, so long as the “proper notice” adopted is consistent with the defendant’s speedy trial rights.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/A157383.PDF