P. v. Superior Court

Filed 9/21/07 P. v. Superior Court CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

The People, having invoked their right to a speedy trial (Cal. Const., art. I, 29), seek a writ of mandate commanding respondent superior court to proceed with the [underlying] criminal case without further delay, other than that reasonably necessary for the parties to obtain the attendance of their witnesses. (Pen. Code,[1] 1511.)

Real party in interest Qi Xin Kuang was charged with various crimes including attempted murder in November 2005. The preliminary hearing was held in October 2006. According to the People, trial was originally set for January 12, 2007.

Trial was continued three times: twice at the request of real party, and once at the request of the People. When the parties appeared for trial on June 22, 2007, the court informed them no courtroom was available and that the matter would be set for trial on August 10. The People, however, asserted their right to a speedy trial, so the court told the parties to come back the following court day (June 25) to see if a courtroom was available.

Apparently no courtroom was available on June 25, or on June 28 or July 3. On July 3 the court set the matter for trial on October 26 over the Peoples objection. The court rejected the Peoples offer to return for trial the next week. The court cited the cost of setting a case for trial: The AOC [Administrative Office of the Courts] says I shouldnt calendar cases needlessly because every time we calendar it, its $300 to The City and County of San Francisco for me to tell you that I cant send it out to trial.

The People filed the instant petition on September 4, 2007. We requested a response from real party. Real party offered no substantive objection to the petition, arguing only that the petition was not timely filed within 60 days of the trial courts order. (See Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 695, 701 [writ petition should be filed within the 60-day period applicable to appeals].) But, as the People have pointed out, the 60th day fell on a weekend, so the People timely submitted the petition by filing it on the first court day after the (holiday) weekend.[2]

Article I, section 29 of the California Constitution provides: In a criminal case, the people of the State of California have the right to due process of law and to a speedy and public trial.

Section 1050 provides: (a) The welfare of the people of the State of California requires that all proceedings in criminal cases shall be set for trial and heard and determined at the earliest possible time. To this end, the Legislature finds that the criminal courts are becoming increasingly congested with resulting adverse consequences to the welfare of the people and the defendant. Excessive continuances contribute substantially to this congestion and cause substantial hardship to victims and other witnesses. Continuances also lead to longer periods of presentence confinement for those defendants in custody and the concomitant overcrowding and increased expenses of local jails. It is therefore recognized that the people, the defendant, and the victims and other witnesses have the right to an expeditious disposition, and to that end it shall be the duty of all courts and judicial officers and of all counsel, both for the prosecution and the defense, to expedite these proceedings to the greatest degree that is consistent with the ends of justice. (Italics added.)

There is no dispute here that absent good cause for a continuance, trial in this matter should have been set within 60 days of the Peoples request for a speedy trial. (See 1049.5.)[3] The only cause cited for continuing trial in the instant matter outside the 60 days required by law was court congestion. Generally court congestion is not an adequate excuse for postponing a criminal case. (See 5 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Trial, 313, subd. (2), pp. 464-465.) And even if it were in this case, no valid reason was given for refusing the Peoples request to leave the matter on calendar in the event a courtroom became open.

The issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance is appropriate as there is no dispute over the law or the facts in this case (see Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1259-1260), and section 1511 provides for immediate relief under the circumstances of this case.

DISPOSITION

Therefore, let a peremptory writ of mandate issue commanding respondent superior court to proceed with the criminal case without further delay, other than that reasonably necessary for the parties to obtain the attendance of their witnesses. This decision is final immediately as to this court (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(3)), and the writ and the remittitur shall issue within three court days after the filing of this decision pursuant to section 1511.

________________________

RIVERA, J.

We concur:

___________________________

RUVOLO, P.J.

___________________________

REARDON, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

[2] Nevertheless, there was no reason for the People to wait until the 60th day to file this petition. Section 1511 provides for immediate appellate review of an order setting trial outside the limits specified by the Penal Code (see 1049.5).

[3] Section 1049.5 provides: In felony cases, the court shall set a date for trial which is within 60 days of the defendants arraignment in the superior court unless, upon a showing of good cause as prescribed in Section 1050, the court lengthens the time. If the court, after a hearing as prescribed in Section 1050, finds that there is good cause to set the date for trial beyond the 60 days, it shall state on the record the facts proved that justify its finding. A statement of facts proved shall be entered in the minutes.