Reynolds v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Dec 17, 1980 No. Civ. 23704Published

Before: Morris

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A defendant must strictly comply with the statutory requirement to serve notice upon the district attorney to trigger the 90-day speedy trial period under Penal Code section 1381; service upon a court clerk does not constitute constructive service.

Issues

Whether a defendant can trigger the 90-day trial limitation of Penal Code section 1381 by serving notice on a court clerk rather than the district attorney.
Whether service upon a court clerk constitutes constructive service upon the district attorney under section 1381.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The requirement of section 1381 is clear and unambiguous, it places upon the charging authority the responsibility to act upon receipt of notice and demand.”

Opinion

MORRIS, J.

On December 7, 1979, petitioner Robert Reynolds was arrested in the City of Riverside on outstanding warrants from Los Angeles County. He was subsequently transported to Los Angeles where he was sentenced to a term of six months in the county jail for a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350.

On December 17, 1979, a felony complaint was filed in the Municipal Court of the Riverside Judicial District charging petitioner with a violation of Penal Code section 12021 (ex-felon in possession of a gun) on account of a firearm alleged to have been concealed upon his person at the time of his arrest in Riverside.

On February 14, 1980, petitioner caused to be mailed to the clerk of the Riverside Municipal Court a document entitled “Petition for a Fair and Speedy Trial, section 1381.” The notice was signed by the petition

[512]

er, set out the substance of Penal Code section 1381, and included a statement of the charge pending against him in Riverside. The notice was received in the Riverside Municipal Court on February 19, 1980, and thereafter, forwarded to the office of the Riverside District Attorney.

The notice was received in the office of the Riverside District Attorney on March 31, 1980. On April 16, 1980, petitioner was returned to Riverside, and a preliminary hearing was conducted on April 25, 1980. Petitioner was held to answer in the superior court and an information was filed on May 5, 1980. On May 30, 1980, petitioner moved to dismiss the charges pursuant to Penal Code section 1381.

Following denial of the motion by the trial court, petitioner applied to this court for a writ of mandate/ prohibition to compel the trial court to dismiss the action. The writ was denied.

Petitioner thereafter filed a petition in the California Supreme Court with the result that that court granted a hearing and transferred the matter to this court with directions to issue an alternative writ of prohibition. Following issuance of an alternative writ, we have again reviewed the matter.

Reynolds v. Superior Court

AI Brief

MORRIS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief