P. v. Standish
Defendant and respondent Jared Jacob Standish was charged with a variety of offenses. On the ninth day of the 10-day statutory period within which the preliminary examination was required to be held, the People moved for a continuance on the ground that a necessary witness was unavailable. The trial court found good cause existed and granted the continuance. In violation of Penal Code section 859b,[1] however, the magistrate did not release Standish on his own recognizance (O.R.). Standish subsequently moved to set aside the information pursuant to section 995, on the ground his substantial rights had been violated at the preliminary hearing. The trial court granted the motion. The People appealed the trial courts ruling to this court. Standish argued that the trial courts ruling was proper, and, in any event, dismissal was required on the alternative ground that good cause had not existed for the continuance. In a published opinion, we affirmed the trial courts ruling, concluding that the failure to grant Standish the statutorily mandated O.R. release denied his substantial rights and entitled him to relief under section 995. (People v. Standish (Oct. 29, 2004, B166344), review granted Feb. 2, 2005, S129755.) In light of our holding, we found it unnecessary to reach the question of whether good cause existed for the continuance.
Court agree with the People that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding good cause existed. To the extent the Peoples good cause showing was defective, Standishs challenge is forfeited because he failed to object below. Court therefore reverse the superior courts order setting aside the information.
Comments on P. v. Standish