Trial Rescheduled Beyond Speedy Trial Limit After an Initial Continuance
My question involves traffic court in the State of California.
Hi guys. I am contesting a traffic infraction case and now I am concerned about my right to a speedy trial.
On January 30, 2014 I requested an arraignment and trial for March 4, 2014. The form I signed says that it is a “REQUEST FOR TRIAL (Not Guilty Plea)”. Also above my signature it says I “. . . intend to plead not guilty . . .”
On February 11, I submitted an Informal Discovery request, according to PC 1054, to the DA with a copy to the LASD station that issued the citation. Having had no response, and fearing I could not delay trial after February 18, 2014 (10 business days before trial), I requested and received a continuance on that date to April 8, 2014. That form says, above my signature, that I understand that “. . . I am waiving my right to a speedy trial to the new trial date . . .”
Having had no reply from the DA’s office on my request for discovery by March 11, 2014 (20 days from the request), I filed a Motion for Discovery with the court.
On March 20, over a month after my request for a new trial date, I received in the mail a form, dated March 18, 2014, from the clerk’s office that said “As to your request for a new trial: Please be advised that the court trial date scheduled for 4/8/14 has been rescheduled for 8/11/14 per officer’s request.” This is a delay of over 4 months! The form gives me that option to contact the court at least 10 days before the new date if I am “unable to comply.” A 4-month delay will require me to go over all this work and research again to be prepared for court and I think that is too much burden; I can forget a lot in 4 months.
PC 1382 says I must have a trial within 45 days of my arraignment. Since I was to be arraigned, and have trial on the same date, where does that leave me? (I am assuming my appearance before the clerk was not an arraignment nor a plea.) Can I now ask for arraignment or can I formally plead not guilty in court or is it too late?
Your assistance will be much appreciated.
Re: Trial Rescheduled Beyond Speedy Trial Limit After an Initial Continuance
Have you objected to the new trial date? See, e.g., People v. Hender ("In this case, we must presume that defendant consented to the setting of a trial date outside the 60-day period as he did not object to the trial date at the time it was set.")
Re: Trial Rescheduled Beyond Speedy Trial Limit After an Initial Continuance
Thank you so much for replying. No I haven't. The form the clerk sent gives me 10 days to object to anything on the form, but since I have not been arraigned nor have I plead in court, I am worried objecting is not useful. In Hender's case, which was a felony case, he'd already been arraigned and had pleaded, which gives him a right to a speedy trial according to PC 1382. What I wonder is can I now ask for an arraignment so I can plead in court to get the clock running according to PC 1382. I also have a motion for discovery filed before the court. Can that help to get me get hearing where, I would assume, I'd have to be arraigned and plead beforehand?
Re: Trial Rescheduled Beyond Speedy Trial Limit After an Initial Continuance
PC 1382 doesn't apply to your case yet, because the period described in that statute is for time that elapses between arraignment and trial. It sounds like you're using the procedure described in CVC 40519. There, the defendant is arraigned and tried at the same hearing. No time elapses between the arraignment and trial. "Since its inception in 1968, section 40519 has declared that any person using the procedure thus authorized is deemed to have waived his right to be tried within the 'statutory period of time.'" (People v. Prince (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d Supp. 19) By using this procedure, which is intended as a convenience to defendants, the courts have held that this waives your right to a speedy trial. If you don't want to use the procedure described in VC 40519 then you can try going to court and talking to the clerk. There you can request that you be scheduled for an arraignment instead of an arraignment and trial on the same day. When you're arraigned the court should set a trial date. Make sure you don't waive time at that hearing, or consent to a trial date that's more than 45 days after the arraignment.
Re: Trial Rescheduled Beyond Speedy Trial Limit After an Initial Continuance
Quote:
Quoting
Rocky Kern
That form says, above my signature, that I understand that “. . . I am waiving my right to a speedy trial to the new trial date . . .”
Do you remember signing this?
Re: Trial Rescheduled Beyond Speedy Trial Limit After an Initial Continuance
To the MadNorwegian, I understand, but I wanted to know if I had any other options. I could try to go and ask for an arraignment date and see if they'd give it to me.
To the CourtClerk (really?), I signed that form, but it said "to the new date" It was not a general waiver of a speedy trial in my mind. Do you think the clerk will give me an earlier arraignment date if I go in and ask even though they are trying to delay the trial by 4 months?
Re: Trial Rescheduled Beyond Speedy Trial Limit After an Initial Continuance
No. They won't push the date forward. If they went 4 months out to reschedule, there was a reason for it. Sounds like the officer is either out ill, injured or will be gone for some other reason. When I rescheduled traffic trials, the officers had to have their postponement requests signed off by their supervisors and we're talking LARGE agencies like the CHP. If he said he'd be out, he's going to be out
Re: Trial Rescheduled Beyond Speedy Trial Limit After an Initial Continuance
CourtClerk, I assume you mean an earlier date. So I am left to wait 4 1/2 months, along with the sleepless nights of worry, and try to remember it all over again. If ever I choose to contest a ticket again I will NEVER request an arraignment and trial on the same date!! Thanks for your help.
Re: Trial Rescheduled Beyond Speedy Trial Limit After an Initial Continuance
Quote:
Quoting
Rocky Kern
Since I was to be arraigned, and have trial on the same date, where does that leave me?
You were to get arraigned. You were not arraigned. And as such, it leaves you with nothing to complain about since the 45 day time restriction has not begun yet and will not begin until 8/11/2014. Even then, it is reduced to mere seconds by way of the nature of your request.
Quote:
Quoting
Rocky Kern
A 4-month delay will require me to go over all this work and research again to be prepared for court
You haven't even told us what you were cited for... So this "burden" you're attempting to demonstrate isn't really clear to us.
Quote:
Quoting
Rocky Kern
I think that is too much burden;
I highly doubt you'll find a judge to agree with you... And yes, the nature of the offense you were cited for does matter. From the standpoint of how this delay might impact your case, (1) you'll have to demonstrate to the court that the delay is unreasonable... And since we are talking about traffic court and a 4 month delay, that is actually quite the improvement over what it used to be last year, or the year before that... Back then, 6, 8 or even 10 months was the norm and that was for the arraignment as well. But (2) you'll have to demonstrate how the delay is likely to cause such and such evidence to go stale, or witness to be unavailable... But to expect that your inability to remember what you were doing that earned you a citation for a traffic infraction, is not convincing to say the least. As for remembering and understanding the researched material you've collected thus far, a presumption that you understand it now will lead to the same presumption that you'll understand it upon review later.
Edited to add: I should qualify the above points by adding that those are valid requirements if you had a legitimate reason to object to the delay. If you did, the above requirements would invalidate such legitimacy and therefore, the way I see it, not only do you have an huge hurdler to overcome, but an obstacle course full of them. End
It should be noted that the delay was likely impacted by the nature and timing of not only your initial request for a trial, but of the nature and timing of your request for an extension. PC 1050 allows for one continuance per party, and you got yours... The citing officer has apparently justified the reason for his..
Unfortunately for you, you are stuck in a phase where there is no stated statutory period whatsoever. Meaning, the statute of limitations (between the date of the offense and the date the charges were filed) had been fulfilled, and there is no chance that the statutory speedy trial provision will be violated, but even with it not being impacted, you waived time and did so knowingly and intelligently. This leaves you in a spot where you're hard pressed to demonstrate to the court that you waived time on a statutory period and yet here you are desperately seeking some sort of recourse regarding another delay that is not regulated. You're clearly reaching for straws and typically, if you're that desperate for a break by way of a procedural violation and specifically one that is as far fetched in your case, I am thinking that you are simply setting yourself up for a huge disappointment!
Quote:
Quoting
Rocky Kern
I can forget a lot in 4 months.
You'll have to find a way to remind yourself of whatever it is that you're claiming is so critical and yet so forgettable. But let me ask this... What do you suggest should be done at this point? Keep inn mind -as CourtClerk suggested- that there is no way to bring the date forward... Also keep in mind that a dismissal is not even in the realm of being a reasonable request...
Quote:
Quoting
Rocky Kern
The form the clerk sent gives me 10 days to object to anything on the form, but since I have not been arraigned nor have I plead in court, I am worried objecting is not useful.
There is no legal basis for your objection. For the same reasons I mentioned above...
Quote:
Quoting
Rocky Kern
In Hender's case, which was a felony case, he'd already been arraigned and had pleaded, which gives him a right to a speedy trial according to PC 1382.
The fact that it was a felony case does not change the basic requirement that the defendant must object to the delay and failing to do so provides for an implied consent to the new date. But in addition, 1382 clearly applies to all three crimes and public offenses (felonies, misdemeanors and infractions). With your case, it actually does not apply at all for a number of reasons. (1) you have not been arraigned, (2) you're already signed a time waiver, (3) you don't seem to have any sort of argument suggesting a lack of prosecution argument. In fact you are in possession of a court notice confirming that prosecution will commence on a certain date.
Quote:
Quoting
Rocky Kern
What I wonder is can I now ask for an arraignment so I can plead in court to get the clock running according to PC 1382. I also have a motion for discovery filed before the court. Can that help to get me get hearing where, I would assume, I'd have to be arraigned and plead beforehand?
You mean to say that now that you know that the "people's witness" is unavailable, the court should accommodate you by allowing you to enter a plea, request a trial date only knowing that a trial cannot be conducted any time sooner than 08/11/2014?
Quote:
Quoting
Rocky Kern
I also have a motion for discovery filed before the court. Can that help to get me get hearing where, I would assume, I'd have to be arraigned and plead beforehand?
Not only will your motion for discovery not help you manipulate the dates to your advantage, but your motion for discovery will not be heard until 08/11/2014 assuming nothing changes as far as delaying that date any further.
Also, and in anticipation of your next question, the DA's &/or the LASD's failure to respond to your discovery request is not a means to a dismissal. Not until the court has exhausted all other sanctions starting with "immediate disclosure" which would typically happen at the time that you do bring up that matter on the date you are scheduled for trial, which is typically the date these requests are complied with.
Quote:
Quoting
Rocky Kern
To the CourtClerk (really?), I signed that form, but it said "to the new date" It was not a general waiver of a speedy trial in my mind.
That is as good as "general waiver" as they can get. It is also an expressed (not implied) waiver of your right to a speedy trial. And still, the period you are stuck in has no relation to PC 1382 or the right to a speedy trial. By signing the form you had consented to a new trial date... Even if that trial date was indicated on the form the opposing party had not been notified of this date and until they are notified and are allowed the opportunity to object to that date, the new date was not written in stone as being April 8, 2014