Skip to content
Name: People v. Superior Court (Tapia) (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 394
Case #: E080076
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/11/2023
Subsequent History: Opn. modified 8/2/2023

Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed defendant’s case based on a finding that its pre-COVID chronic backlog was not good cause to extend Penal Code section 1382’s presumptive 60-day trial deadline. Defendant’s last day for trial under section 1382 was October 26, 2022, but there were no available courtrooms. Defendant successfully moved to dismiss his case. The trial court found there was no good cause to continue defendant’s trial because, although exceptional circumstances had justified past continuances during the pandemic, defendant could not be timely tried due to the court’s chronic backlog that was related to, but…

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

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…

View Full Summary
Name: Davis v. Superior Court (Solano County)
Case #: A152296
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 12/29/2017

Trial court erred in denying motion to dismiss defendant's case for failure to hold the preliminary hearing within 10 court days from reinstatement of criminal proceedings, despite an earlier time waiver before proceedings were suspended. While in custody, Davis waived his right to a preliminary hearing within 10 court days and 60 days of entering his plea. On the day of the preliminary hearing, however, the court declared a doubt as to Davis' mental competence (see Pen. Code, § 1367, et seq.) and criminal proceedings were suspended. Proceedings were reinstated nearly six months later, and the court reset…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Figueroa
Case #: H043204
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/09/2017

Complaint properly dismissed under Penal Code section 859b where preliminary hearing was not held within 60 days of defendant's not guilty plea, even though he had previously waived time when the criminal proceedings were reinstated after a doubt was declared as to his competence. After Figueroa waived arraignment on felony charges, the court suspended proceedings pursuant to Penal Code section 1368. Months later, criminal proceedings were reinstated and the trial court believed it had 60 days from the date proceedings were reinstated to conduct the preliminary hearing. Figueroa waived the 60-day requirement. Seventeen days later Figueroa entered a not guilty…

View Full Summary
Name: Betterman v. Montana
Case #: 14-1457
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 05/19/2016

Speedy trial right does not apply to postconviction, presentence delay. Betterman pleaded guilty to bail jumping. After his plea, he was jailed for over 14 months awaiting sentencing. Betterman appealed, arguing that the 14-month gap between conviction and sentencing violated his speedy trial right. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the Sixth Amendment's speedy trial clause did not apply to postconviction, presentence delay. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split of authority on this issue. Held: Affirmed. The speedy trial guarantee flows from the presumption of innocence "prevent[ing] undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial .…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Alexander
Case #: 14-50576
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 04/01/2016

The United States is not responsible under the "joint venture" doctrine for Canada's delay in processing an extradition request, and the delay did not violate defendant's right to a speedy trial. Defendant and others were charged with federal mail fraud. Shortly after an indictment was returned, the U.S. commenced efforts to extradite defendant from Canada. It took almost five years for Canada to approve the request. After his arrest by Canadian authorities, defendant fought extradition for 16 months. When defendant returned to the U.S., he moved to dismiss his indictment on speedy trial grounds. At the hearing on the motion,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lazarus
Case #: B241172
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 07/13/2015

People v. Nelson, which held that negligence as well as purposeful pre-accusation delay may violate due process, applies where the crimes occurred after the passage of the truth-in-evidence provision of the California Constitution. Lazarus, a Los Angeles police officer, was convicted of the 1986 first degree murder of her former lover's wife. The crime was not solved until 2009, when DNA evidence linked Lazarus to the murder. Lazarus moved to dismiss, based on pre-accusation delay and the negligence of the police investigators. The trial court denied the motion, finding that although Lazarus had made a minimal showing of prejudice, the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Garcia
Case #: B236898
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 02/13/2014

A defendant who flees the jurisdiction of a court for the purpose of avoiding prosecution waives the right to a speedy trial. In 1976, a complaint alleging murder was filed against appellant and a warrant for his arrest issued. After October 1976, the police made no efforts to find appellant until 2009 when they received a tip from the FBI that appellant was in Texas. He was located and arrested and returned to California. Following two mistrials, he was convicted of first degree murder in 2011 at his third trial. On appeal, appellant contended that the 33-year delay between the…

View Full Summary
Name: Dews v. Superior Court (San Francisco)
Case #: A139102
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 01/30/2014

Under the Barker v. Wingo (1972) 407 U.S. 514 balancing test for evaluating federal speedy trial claims, defendant is not automatically entitled to dismissal of a case where the delay is presumptively prejudicial and the state does not provide a justification. Dews was arrested for driving under the influence on January 29, 2011. A complaint was prepared and an arrest warrant issued on July 21, 2011, but Dews was not arrested until February 11, 2013. He was arraigned on the charges later that month. The trial court denied Dews' motion to dismiss the case for violation of his speedy…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Mahoney
Case #: E055162
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 10/17/2013

There was sufficient evidence that appellant knowingly possessed or controlled child pornography images in the temporary Internet space on his computers. In an appeal from his conviction for possession of child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a)), appellant claimed that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he knew that child pornography and erotica images were in the temporary Internet space on his computers, relying on United States v. Kuchinski (2006) 469 F.3d 853. In Kuchinski, the court held that where a defendant lacks knowledge about the cache files and lacks access and control over those files, it is…

View Full Summary