People v. Davisbragdon

Filed 8/9/23

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE

THE PEOPLE, 30-2022-01248296

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21NM14212)

v. OPINION

JAMES DAVISBRAGDON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, North Justice Center, James Rogan and Jeremy Dolnick, Judges. Reversed. Martin Schwarz, Public Defender, Adam Vining, Assistant Public Defender, and Shawn McDonald, Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant. Todd Spitzer, District Attorney, and Thomas Collins, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION A jury convicted defendant James Davisbragdon of violating a protective order (Pen. Code,1 § 166, subd. (c)(1)). He contends the trial court violated his right to a speedy trial. We agree and reverse.

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 30, 2021, the People charged defendant with inflicting corporal injury in violation of section 273.5, subdivision (a) (count 1), and violating a protective order in violation of section 166, subdivision (c)(1) (count 2). On December 2, 2021, while in custody, defendant pleaded not guilty to both counts and did not waive time for trial. On January 3, 2022 (the last day for trial under section 1382 without a time waiver), defendant remained in custody but was not transported to court because he had recently tested positive for COVID-19 and was not yet medically cleared for transport. Dr. C. Chiang, the Medical Director of Correctional Health Services, submitted a declaration stating that if defendant was asymptomatic on January 7, he could be transported to court on January 10. The trial court found good cause to set the case for trial on January 10, 2022. On January 10, the People and defendant answered ready for trial. Defendant remained in custody but was not transported to court. The trial court (Judge James Rogan) noted defendant was medically cleared for transport to court, but stated it was too late in the day to obtain a jury panel and transport defendant to court as it was approximately 11:30 a.m. Over defendant’s objection, the court found good cause to continue the trial to January 11, 2022. Defendant moved to dismiss the case under section 1382, and the court stated it would entertain that motion on January 11. The court granted the People’s motion to dismiss count 1. On January 11, 2022, defendant remained in custody and was transported to court. He again moved to dismiss the case pursuant to section 1382. The trial court (Judge Jeremy Dolnick) denied the motion and the case proceeded to trial on count 2. The jury found defendant guilty.