Skip to content
Name: People v. Johnson
Case #: B240837
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 08/08/2013

While no good cause justified continuing appellant's probation revocation hearing, he did not suffer any prejudice from the delay. Appellant was convicted of two counts of robbery and sentenced to six years in state prison. Execution of sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for three years. On January 13, 2012, he was arrested for possession of marijuana and debit and credit cards not belonging to him. His request for a continuance of his probation violation hearing was granted and the matter was continued for a month. Over appellant's objection, the court then granted the prosecution's request…

View Full Summary
Name: Burgos v. Superior Court
Case #: A134928
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 05/31/2012

Under Penal Code section 1050, subdivision (g)(2), in the prosecution of a murder case, good cause for a continuance may be established where the prosecuting attorney has another trial in progress. In this petition for writ of mandate, the court considered the interplay between Penal Code sections 1382 and 1050, subdivision (g)(2). Section 1382 (speedy trial) requires dismissal for delay in a felony case exceeding 60 days unless good cause is shown. Section 1050, subdivision (g)(2) allows for a continuance of trial in a murder prosecution where the prosecuting attorney has a qualifying scheduling conflict. Good cause…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Graves
Case #: B220129
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 10/25/2010
Subsequent History: review denied but depublished 2/23/11

Forcing an unprepared prosecutor to trial violates the legislative intent behind Penal Code section 1050 and 1382. The People appealed a dismissal of a misdemeanor charge of spousal battery and battery of a mother-in-law. The case was transferred to the Court of Appeal to address the People's right to trail a case within the period of the speedy trial statute and the trial court's right to deny a continuance when good cause for a continuance has not been shown. The case was set for trial on day 28 of 30 days for purposes of the speedy trial statute for…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ferrer
Case #: A124178
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 05/14/2010

Although Penal Code section 1050 requires the People to show good cause for a continuance of a hearing on a motion to suppress, dismissal of the case for failure to show good cause, either directly or because dismissal would be a reasonable outcome of the denial of the motion to continue, is not a permissible sanction. Following the preliminary hearing where appellant was held to answer on a count of cultivation of marijuana, appellant filed a motion to suppress. On the date of the hearing, which was approximately two months before the trial date, the prosecuting attorney verbally requested a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sutton
Case #: S166402
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 04/05/2010

Unavailability of a defendant's counsel, not attributable to the state action, may constitute good cause for continuance of trial beyond the sixty day specified in Penal Code section 1382 and the state's interest in properly joined trials may constitute good cause for continuance of a codefendant's trial beyond the presumptive statutory period of section 1382. Under Penal Code section 1382, a defendant must be brought to trial within sixty days of arraignment on the felony charges unless "good cause" is shown for a later setting or the defendant consents to trial beyond the 60 days. In this case, the…

View Full Summary
Name: Mendez v. Superior Court
Case #: D051512
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 04/30/2008

The trial court properly considered information not presented at a motion to continue hearing when it denied a section 1382 motion to dismiss. Mendez sought a writ of prohibition against the trial court's order denying his motion to dismiss because the prosecutor failed to comply with the written notice and pleading requirements of section 1050 when it requested a continuance of the trial. He also contended that the prosecutor's scheduling problems and the police officer's unavailability to testify were not good cause for a continuance, and that in ruling on the motion to dismiss, the trial court…

View Full Summary
Name: Jensen v. Superior Court, Los Angeles
Case #: B200619
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 02/20/2008

Due diligence justifying a request for a continuance of a jury trial is established when a criminal subpoena is served on a peace officer pursuant to Penal Code section 1328, subdivision (c), even if the officer did not personally receive the subpoena. To establish good cause for a continuance because of the unavailability of a witness, the party seeking the continuance must establish that he/she exercised due diligence to secure the witness’s attendance; the witness's expected testimony is material and not cumulative; the testimony could be obtained within a reasonable period of time; and the facts to which the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Beames
Case #: S050455
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 03/22/2007

The decision whether to grant a continuance is within the discretion of the trial court. There are no mechanical tests to decide if a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to violate due process -– it is determined on a case by case basis. When a defendant make a motion to continue to investigate whether to pursue a change of venue, subsequent failure to exhaust peremptory challenges and failure to object to the final composition of the jury signify that the jury as impaneled is fair and impartial so that no venue change was necessary. Appellant…

View Full Summary
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…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gonzalez
Case #: B173126
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 02/23/2005
Subsequent History: Revw. den. 6/8/05

Where a defendant had more than a month’s notice of the general subject of a gang expert’s proffered testimony, the court did not err in denying a mid-trial continuance to allow the defense to prepare to counter that testimony. Although defense counsel claimed that the first he had heard of the gang testimony was a week before the 402 hearing regarding that proffered testimony, the record contradicted that claim. Thus, the defendant had waived any right to a mid-trial continuance to seek a gang expert. Moreover, even if the court had erred in denying the continuance, defendant…

View Full Summary