People v. Ochoa CA5

California Court of Appeal Jun 3, 2016 No. F070248Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant's request for a speedy trial under Penal Code section 1381 is premature and invalid if it is served before a criminal complaint has been filed against the defendant.

Issues

Whether the defendant's right to a speedy trial under Penal Code section 1381 was violated.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because Ochoa failed to comply with the applicable statutory requirements, there is no merit to his argument.”

“The statute requires a complaint be filed against the defendant before a section 1381 demand is served on the district attorney.”

“Accordingly, accepting Ochoa’s statement of facts as true, we reject his argument because his section 1381 demand for a speedy trial was premature.”

Filed 6/3/16 P. v. Ochoa CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F070248 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. VCF291277 & v. VCF291637)

JOSE ROLANDO OCHOA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Darryl B. Ferguson, Judge. Cynthia L. Barnes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Franson, J.

Jose Rolando Ochoa entered into a plea agreement resolving two cases pending against him. He was sentenced pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement. He appeals, asserting his right to a speedy court trial as codified in Penal Code section 1381 was violated and, therefore, he was wrongfully incarcerated.1 Because Ochoa failed to comply with the applicable statutory requirements, there is no merit to his argument. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Case No. VCF291277 On November 15, 2013, the Tulare County District Attorney’s office filed a complaint against Ochoa in case No. VCF291277. The information was filed on or about February 12, 2014. The sole count of the information charged Ochoa with possession of drug paraphernalia in jail. (§ 4573.6.) The information also alleged Ochoa (1) had a prior conviction that constituted a strike within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b)–(i), and (2) had served two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Case No. VCF291637 On November 25, 2013, the Tulare County District Attorney’s office filed a complaint against Ochoa in case No. VCF291637. On or about February 12, 2014, the information was filed charging Ochoa with residential burglary. (§ 459.) The information also alleged Ochoa (1) had a prior conviction that constituted a strike within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b)–(i), (2) had suffered a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and (3) had served two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Preliminary hearings were held in both cases on February 10, 2014. On August 1, 2014, Ochoa entered into a plea agreement in both cases. In case No. VCF291637,

People v. Ochoa CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief