P. v. Limas CA1/4

Filed 4/29/13 P.v. Limas CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A134593 v. KIMBERLY ANN LIMAS, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR258009) Defendant and Appellant.

Kimberly Ann Limas appeals from a judgment upon a jury verdict finding her guilty of one count of obtaining public aid by misrepresentation (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10980, subd. (c)(2).) She contends that she was denied her right to a speedy trial. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 24, 2008, a felony complaint charging defendant with one count of obtaining public aid by misrepresentation and two counts of perjury was filed.1 The charges alleged that defendant misrepresented the number of children who lived in her household between the period from September 2006 to February 2007. The court sent defendant a notice of arraignment at her last-known address in Pinole. The notice informed defendant that an appearance date had been set for January 13, 2009. Defendant failed to appear; the court therefore issued a bench warrant.

1 The complaint was subsequently amended to exclude the perjury counts.

1

On April 20, 2009, Karl Phillipps, a supervising investigator for the Solano County Special Investigations Bureau determined that defendant had received public assistance in Alameda County and had listed an address and telephone number in Oakland. He was unsuccessful in reaching defendant by telephone and consequently sent her a letter informing her of the warrant and its date of issuance and explaining the procedures for obtaining a court date. Defendant called Phillipps on April 29, 2009, and acknowledged receiving the letter. She told Phillipps that the she did not reside at the Oakland address but was living in Pittsburg. She thought she had filed an appeal in the Solano case. Phillipps explained that he was not aware of the appeal, but that she was required to appear on the warrant and that it would be outstanding until she appeared in court. Phillipps thereafter learned that defendant had no appeals pending in Solano County and called defendant on April 29, 2009 to let her know. Phillipps again reiterated to defendant that she was required to appear on the warrant and advised her to follow the directions in the letter he had sent her in order to have the matter calendared. Defendant told Phillipps she would do so. Phillips also contacted the investigations unit in Contra Costa County to advise the unit of defendant’s address and her outstanding warrant. Defendant did not enter an appearance on the warrant and was not arraigned on the complaint until the bench warrant was recalled in March 2011. On October 31, 2011, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that her speedy trial rights were violated. She argued that the delay between the filing of the complaint and her arraignment violated her right to a speedy trial. She also asserted that she had suffered prejudice because her sister, Michelle Limas, and her son, T1, could not recall whether T1 lived with her during the relevant period. The People opposed the motion, contending that defendant’s federal speedy trial rights were not implicated because the right to a speedy trial did not attach until the information was filed on August 18, 2011. Alternatively, the People argued that defendant had not established prejudice, and that she was nonetheless responsible for any delay in prosecution because she was aware of the outstanding warrant.