People v. Crothers CA1/3

Filed 7/30/14 P. v. Crothers CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, A139294 v. MATTHEW STEVEN CROTHERS et al., (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR629730) Defendants and Respondents.

The People appeal from the dismissal of a complaint against defendants Matthew Steven Crothers and Shawn Patrick Captain, charging them with the felony offenses of unlawfully planting, cultivating, harvesting, drying, and processing marijuana and unlawfully possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § § 11358, 11359). We conclude there are no statutory grounds for dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the matter for further proceedings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 On January 30, 2013,2 a complaint was filed against defendants Matthew Steven Crothers and Shawn Patrick Captain alleging that on or about August 4, 2012, they had committed the felony offenses of unlawfully planting, cultivating, harvesting, drying, and processing marijuana and unlawfully possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11358, 11359). On February 11, defendants waived time for their preliminary hearing

1 We set forth only those facts that are necessary to resolve the appeal. 2 All further unspecified date references are to events that occurred in 2013.

1

and later renewed their waivers on March 7 and again on May 13. On the latter date, defendants signed waivers of their personal appearances, and a preliminary hearing was scheduled for July 15. At the morning session of the July 15 proceeding, the prosecutor made an oral motion seeking a continuance on the ground she was not ready to proceed at that time having just received that morning a supplemental report from a police officer. After argument, the magistrate denied the motion as the prosecutor failed to show good cause for the continuance over defense counsel’s objection. The magistrate further stated that absent an agreement to continue by all parties, the preliminary hearing would be conducted in the afternoon session. Thereafter, at the afternoon session, the prosecutor again announced the People were not prepared to proceed to a preliminary hearing. The magistrate stated she would “be dismissing the case” because there was no good cause for the prosecutor’s failure to proceed. The prosecutor objected, stating that dismissal was not an appropriate remedy and was not being requested by the People because both defendants were out of custody and had waived the statutory time limits for a preliminary hearing (Pen. Code, § 859b3). Instead, the prosecutor asked the magistrate to reset the preliminary hearing to a date within the statutory time limits in section 859b. The magistrate denied the request, ruling that there was no good cause shown for the prosecutor’s failure to proceed and therefore the appropriate remedy was dismissal. The trial court’s minute orders of July 15, are consistent with the magistrate’s rulings. They reflect that during the morning session, the magistrate denied the People’s section 1050 motion as “court does not find good cause,” and the case was passed to 1:30