People v. Benson CA3

Filed 4/18/25 P. v. Benson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101110

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FE- 2023-0004263) v.

LANCE ALYN BENSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is an appeal from judgment after a jury found defendant Lance Alyn Benson committed battery by a prisoner. His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his due process motion to dismiss based on precharging delay. We will affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS On September 5, 2021, while incarcerated at the California Health Care Facility (CHCF), defendant was involved in a physical altercation with a correctional officer. At trial, the officer testified that defendant attacked him after he gave defendant an order to

1

go back to his unit, while defendant testified that he punched the officer after the officer had disrespected and provoked him, causing him to fear for his safety with the other inmates. More than 19 months after the altercation, on April 13, 2023, the People filed a complaint charging defendant with one count of battery by a prisoner. (Pen. Code, § 4501.5.) After a preliminary hearing, the People filed an information that added the allegations that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury (id., § 12022.7) and defendant was previously convicted of a serious crime (id., §§ 1170.12, subd. (b), 667, subd. (d)). Before trial, defendant filed a motion to dismiss for speedy trial violations. The People opposed the motion. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. A jury found defendant guilty of battery, but found not true the great bodily injury allegation. In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found true the prior conviction allegation. The court sentenced defendant to prison for the lower term of two years, doubled to four years due to his prior conviction. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. The case was fully briefed in February 2025 and was assigned to the current panel at the end of that month. DISCUSSION Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to dismiss. As we next explain, we disagree. A. Legal Background The due process clauses of the federal and California constitutions “protect a defendant from the prejudicial effects of lengthy, unjustified delay between the commission of a crime and the defendant’s arrest and charging.” (People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 430 (Cowan).) “A defendant seeking to dismiss a charge on [grounds of precharging delay] must demonstrate prejudice arising from the delay. The prosecution may offer justification for