FLEMING v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html > <head> <title>FLEMING v</title> </head> <body> <div> <br/> <br/><b >FLEMING v. </b><b >SUPERIOR</b><b > </b><b >COURT</b><b > </b><b >OF</b><b > </b><b >ORANGE</b><b > </b><b >COUNTY</b><b ></b> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>Filed 1/19/11 <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/><b >CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b> <br/> <br/>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA <br/> <br/>FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT <br/> <br/>DIVISION THREE <br/> <br/> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 > <tr > <td width=319 valign=top > <br/>JAMES FLEMING, <br/> <br/> Petitioner, <br/> <br/> v. <br/> <br/>THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, <br/> <br/> Respondent; <br/> <br/>THE PEOPLE, <br/> <br/> Real Party in Interest. <br/> </td> <td width=319 valign=top > <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>G043395 <br/> <br/>(Super. Ct. No. 07ZF0013) <br/> <br/>ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING; NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT </td> </tr> <tr > <td width=319 valign=top > <br/> <br/>THE PEOPLE, <br/> <br/> Plaintiff and Appellant, <br/> <br/> v. <br/> <br/>JAMES FLEMING, <br/> <br/> Defendant and Respondent. <br/> </td> <td width=319 valign=top > <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> G043577 </td> </tr> </table> <br/> <br/> The opinion in this matter, filed December 21, 2010, is hereby <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">modified</a> as follows: <br/> On page 34 of the slip opinion, in the last complete paragraph (the one that begins with “There is also the matter of transcripts”), the sentence that currently reads: <br/> Particularly given the delay in the actual preparation of the transcripts and forwarding to counsel, it is unlikely all the reading could have been completed, much less a proper motion prepared, in 60 days. <br/> is modified to read: <br/> Particularly given the voluminous record and the delay in the actual preparation of the transcripts and forwarding to counsel (even if the record was technically finalized prior to the arraignment), it is unlikely all the reading could have been completed, much less a proper motion prepared, in 60 days. <br/> This modification does not affect the judgment. <br/> The petition for rehearing filed by the district attorney’s office on January 5, 2011 is DENIED. <br/> <br/> <br/> ___________________________ <br/> SILLS, P. J. <br/> <br/>WE CONCUR: <br/> <br/> <br/>___________________________ <br/>RYLAARSDAM, J. <br/> <br/> <br/>___________________________ <br/>MOORE, J. <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>Publication courtesy of <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">San Diego free legal advice</a>. <br/>Analysis and review provided by <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Santee Property line attorney</a>. <br/><a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com" target="_blank">San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com</a> <br/> <br/> </div> </body> </html>