Walsworth v. Super. Ct.

Filed 12/20/23 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento) ----

ADAM WALSWORTH, C098517

Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. 20FE014424)

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING in mandate. Petition granted. James P. Arguelles, Judge.

Adam Walsworth, in pro. per., for Petitioner.

Law Office of Jarvis Fay LLP and Rick W. Jarvis, for Respondent.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie Hokans and Jessica C. Leal, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest.

1

Here we direct respondent court to issue an order granting petitioner Adam Walsworth’s motion to dismiss his case. He was denied the statutory right to a speedy trial, and there was no good cause for the undue delay. We had reversed petitioner’s conviction and remanded for a new trial, issuing the remittitur on October 27, 2022. Five days later (November 1, 2022), respondent court clerk received the remittitur in the mail. We hold this is the date the remittitur at issue here was deemed filed pursuant to the California Rules of Court. But nothing substantive was done in respondent court. Thirty-two days after we issued the remittitur (November 28, 2022), petitioner filed an appeal with the California Department of Corrections (CDCR), claiming his sentence was reversed and he should be released to county custody. CDCR denied the claim because respondent court told CDCR no changes had been made to petitioner’s conviction. Petitioner’s appellate counsel then sent a letter to respondent court inquiring about the status of petitioner’s new trial and attaching the remittitur. The sentencing judge received this letter 97 days after we issued the remittitur (on February 1, 2023). The sentencing judge ordered filing of the remittitur on the same day and scheduled an expedited hearing. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss. The sentencing judge denied the motion, finding no speedy trial violation because the remittitur was filed by the sentencing court on February 1, 2023, and because petitioner failed to demonstrate actual prejudice. Petitioner here seeks a writ of mandate to compel respondent court to dismiss his case on the ground that he was not brought to trial within 60 days of the filing of the remittitur. We agree. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In a previous appeal, we reversed petitioner’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. (People v. Walsworth (Aug. 24, 2022, C094272) [nonpub. opn.].) We issued the remittitur on October 27, 2022.