Jackson v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal May 13, 1991 No. B056356Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss for a speedy trial violation because the delay was caused by official neglect and logistical failures rather than good cause.

Issues

Whether the sheriff's failure to timely transport a defendant to court constitutes good cause for delaying a trial beyond the statutory period.
Whether a trial court's policy of requiring a defendant's presence by 9:30 a.m. to avoid interrupting civil trials justifies a delay in a criminal trial.
Whether the existence of a pending plea bargain offer automatically extends the statutory time period for trial.

Disposition. writ granted

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The risk of delay caused by those charged with official action rests with People, not the defendant.”

“Absent exceptional circumstances, court congestion does not constitute good cause for delay.”

“A defendant’s right to speedy trial cannot be stifled by procrastination or neglect by public officials.”

Opinion

THE COURT.

John Barry Jackson, an incarcerated defendant, seeks a writ of mandate directing the respondent court to dismiss all charges because trial was continued beyond the statutory time period (Pen. Code, § 1382),

thereby depriving him of the right to speedy trial. Because the delay was the result of official conduct not justified by good cause, we grant the writ.

Background

After numerous continuances, the trial was set on February 11, 1991, the last day to which the parties had agreed for extension of the statutory time

[1393]

period. When Jackson’s case was called for trial, at 11:30 a.m. on February 11, 1991, defense counsel was in the courtroom. Jackson was not present because the sheriff had not transported Jackson to court until approximately 11:15 a.m. When the case was called Jackson was retained in a general holding area of the courtroom. Jackson was taken to the holding cell adjacent to the courtroom at noon. By that time trial had been continued over defense counsel’s objection. The court found good cause to delay trial because “Sheriff fails to deliver defendant to court.” The court commented that a defendant’s presence was needed by 9:30 a.m. in order to “make arrangements” to find a civil court to try a criminal case.

Jackson’s motion to dismiss pursuant to section 1382 was denied on February 13, 1991. This petition was timely filed on February 21, 1991. After we notified the parties we were considering granting the petition, we received opposition from People and a reply from defense counsel.

Discussion

The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right designed “ ‘to protect those accused of crime against possible delay, caused either by willful oppression, or the neglect of the state or its officers.’”

(Jones

Jackson v. Superior Court

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief