People v. Brusell

California Court of Appeal Jul 29, 1980 No. Crim. 19733Published

Before: Christian

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the action for lack of a speedy trial because the defendant did not qualify for relief under Penal Code section 1381 and failed to demonstrate actual prejudice under the constitutional speedy trial test.

Issues

Whether the trial court or prosecutor must inform a defendant of the People's right to appeal.
Whether the defendant was entitled to dismissal under Penal Code section 1381.
Whether the trial court correctly applied the constitutional test for a speedy trial claim.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“no judicial or legislative authority requires the court or the prosecutor to inform a defendant of the People’s right to appeal.”

“Respondent did not come within the provisions of section 1381 when he commenced his jail term in Riverside, because at that time he had not been “committed to and placed in” Riverside County jail for more than 90 days.”

“The record lacks substantial evidence supporting dismissal of the action pursuant to the basic constitutional test for a speedy trial claim where no specific statute is involved.”

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, J.

The People appeal from an order dismissing for lack of speedy trial an information charging respondent Robert C. Brusell with burglary (Pen. Code, § 459).

On May 17, 1978, respondent was arrested by Sonoma County authorities for several burglaries. He admitted that in Marin County he had committed another burglary. A complaint alleging the Marin County burglary was filed on May 25, 1978, and a warrant for respondent’s arrest was issued. Respondent was served with the Marin County warrant on June 15, 1978, while he was still in jail pending disposition of the Sonoma County charges.

On July 17, 1978, while respondent was still awaiting trial in Sonoma County, he was released to the custody of his father and went to Riverside for the purpose of having surgery. While he was in Riverside

[715]

appellant perpetrated a burglary. He was convicted of the Riverside burglary on November 9, 1978. The court admitted him to 2 years’ probation conditioned on a term of 180 days in the Riverside County jail, less credit for 115 days’ time already served.

Respondent was surrendered to Sonoma County authorities on December 2, 1978. On February 5, 1979, on the Sonoma County charges, he was admitted to 3 years’ probation with 180 days in jail, less credit for 120 days’ time already served. He was released to Marin County authorities on March 6, 1979. An information charging the Marin County burglary was filed on April 4, 1979. Respondent moved for dismissal of the action for denial of the right to a speedy trial; the motion was granted.

The trial court’s order of dismissal was made on May 4, 1979. The People filed a notice of appeal on May 30. The Clerk of the Marin County Superior Court served respondent’s trial counsel, the Marin County Public Defender, with a notice of the filing of the notice of appeal. On August 30, 1979, trial counsel informed this court that respondent had not been located and stated that trial counsel would be unable to represent respondent on the present appeal. This court declined trial counsel’s subsequent request for leave to represent respondent, because respondent had not asked for court-appointed counsel. The State Public Defender, however, was permitted to assert respondent’s rights by appearing as an amicus curiae.

People v. Brusell

AI Brief

CHRISTIAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief