People v. Agnew

THE COURT. The cause was transferred to this court after decision by the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. We adopt the opinion of that court, prepared by Judge Prank G. Swain, which is as follows (words indicated by abbreviations therein are inserted) :

The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction. He received a traffic citation which charged him with violating Vehicle Code section 21460, subdivision (a), driving to the left of a double yellow line, and directed him to appear before a deputy clerk of the municipal court in Los Angeles on November 25, 1964. Defendant signed that part of the traffic ticket which constituted his written promise to appear at the time and place specified. He did appear before the clerk on November 25, 1964, wanted to plead “not guilty” and was directed to appear in Division 50 of the Municipal Court of the Los Angeles Judicial District on December 1, 1964. He was not asked to sign and did not sign any written promise to appear in court but did appear there at the time specified and pleaded not guilty. The case was then set for trial on January 13, 1965, but due to a crowded calendar was not tried until the 14th. On the 13th the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action, under Penal Code section 1382, subdivision 3, on the ground that he was denied a speedy trial, was denied. Whether or not that ruling was correct is the only point which concerns us in this appeal.

Penal Code section 1382, subdivision 3, provides: “The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, must order the action to be dismissed in the following cases: . . . 3. Regardless of when the complaint is filed, when a defendant in a misdemeanor case in an inferior court is not brought to trial within 30 days after he is arrested unless he has signed a written notice to appear, in which case within 45 days after the latest date by which he has promised to appear, or the date upon which he does in fact appear, whichever may be later ...” (Italics added.)

The defendant claims that he “appeared” on November 25, 1964, when he “appeared” before the clerk as directed; the prosecution claims that he did not “appear” until he appeared in court on December 1, 1964. If the 45-day period specified in Penal Code section 1382, subdivision 3, began to run November 25,1964, it ended January 9, 1965, and the trial [704]on January 14 was too late; if it began to run on December 1, 1964, it ended January 15, 1965, and the case was tried in time.