Right to a Speedy Trial

[EWYLTJ]

No. Again you have to claim your right to a speedy trial. You should have immediately notified the court in writing that you were not waiving your right and objecting to the continuation. You can still try in Sept. but I doubt the trial judge will go along with it.

What part of 1382 requires that???

[SNC900]

Went to court today and moved for dismissal under California Penal Code Section 1382 (a)(3)(B) before the officer started to testify. The judge looked up his books and said I gave general time waiver so this section did not apply. As I did not sign anything but rather merely consented to original trial date at my arraignment, I asked the judge as to when it happened. "At your arraignment", he said.

I guess I would need to do some research on how general time waiver is entered. Anyway, it appears that if I did a written withdrawal of time waiver 30 days before the original trial date, I would have been fine because the officer was unable to attend on that date.

[lwpat]

Thank you for confirming the correctness of my post.

[EWYLTJ]

A post that is coincidental with a judge who pre-determines guilt is no confirmation of correctness.

SNC, You should really file an appeal. Not just for yourself, but for all the other unsuspecting defendants whose rights under the law will be abused by this pinhead judge.

If you want some help with an appeal... let me know.

[SNC900]

Thanks for your offer, EWYLTJ

I read about 2 types of time waivers accepted by court: time waiver to a specific date beyond statuary limit; and general time waiver. Consenting to a specific trial date at my arraignment sounds more like the first type rather than general time waiver. 1382(a)(3)(B) explicitly says about an absence of express general time waiver.

I'm trying to find case law that draws the border line as to how these two time waivers should be entered.

[EWYLTJ]

Well, unless the trial court had a transcript of the arraignment, he would only been able to assume any implied waiver. He would have had no evidence that any such waiver existed, therefore, he was inappropriate to rule that a waiver existed.

[SNC900]

Coming back to the issue of time waiver to a specific date vs. general time waiver. In my case, the judge in court ruled that I'd given a general time waiver although I merely consented to a specific date. He denied my motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of 1382(a)(3)(B). Consequently he found me guilty (he offered me a traffic school, though.)

Well, my case was submitted for review. Today I received a notice from court stating that after reviewing my case I was found not guilty and the case was dismissed.

[EWYLTJ]

OUTSTANDING!!! Score one more for the good guys and take away one from the nay-sayers!!!