People v. Perea
Before: Crail
CRAIL, J.,
pro
tem.
The contention of appellant is that he was not accorded a speedy trial to which he was entitled under article I, section 13, of the constitution, nor a trial within the time provided in sections 681a, 1050, and 1382 of the Penal Code.
Section 681a is general in its terms and directory merely. It requires that all proceedings in criminal eases shall be had and determined at the earliest possible time.
Section 1050 reads as follows: “The court shall set all criminal cases for trial for a date not later than thirty days after the date of entry of the plea of the defendant. No continuance of the trial shall be granted except upon affirmative proof in open court, upon reasonable notice, that
[185]
the ends of justice require a continuance. No continuance shall be granted for any longer time than it is affirmatively proved the ends of justice require. Whenever any continuance is granted, the court shall enter in its minutes the facts proved which require the continuance. Criminal cases shall be given precedence over civil matters and proceedings. If any court is unable to hear all criminal cases pending before it within thirty days after the respective defendants have entered their pleas, it must immediately notify the chairman of the judicial council.”
Section 1382 reads as follows: “The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, must order the prosecution to be dismissed in the following cases:
“1. When a person has been held to- answer for a public offense, if an indictment is not found or an information filed against him, within thirty days thereafter.
“2. If a defendant, whose trial has not been postponed upon his application, is not brought to trial within sixty days after, the finding of the indictment, or filing of the information.”
If section 1050 is mandatory the defendant is entitled to a reversal and a dismissal of the case. If it is directory merely, then the failure to comply with its terms does not entitle him to such relief. We are of the opinion that the section is directory merely. The reasoning in
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)