People v. Superior Court of Riverside County (Cal. Ct. App., July 11, 2023, No. E080076) 2023 WL 4444079, at *1
Riverside County Superior Court’s lack of judges and impact of COVID-19 pandemic
The Superior Court for the County of Riverside has not had enough judges for nearly twenty years. The Court was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. It had to periodically suspend all jury trials and various deadlines, close courtrooms, and continue numerous matters.
Penal Code section 1382’s 60-day trial deadline and the pandemic
Penal Code section 1382 imposes a presumptive 60-day deadline to bring a felony case to trial after a defendant is arraigned. In 2010, the California Supreme Court upheld the Superior Court’s dismissal of a felony case under section 1382 because there was no available judge or courtroom. (People v. Engram (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1131 (Engram).) The Court held, without qualification, that “the state’s failure, over a considerable period of time, to provide a number of judges sufficient to meet the needs of Riverside County’s rapidly growing population and caseload” did not provide good cause to extend section 1382’s deadline. (Engram, supra, at p. 1138.) Courts of Appeal have held that delay and docket congestion caused by the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes good cause to extend section 1382’s deadline. (See e.g., Stanley v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 164, 167-168, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 735 (Stanley); Hernandez-Valenzuela v. Superior Court (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 1108, 291 Cal.Rptr.3d 154 (Hernandez-Valenzuela); Elias v. Superior Court (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 926, 294 Cal.Rptr.3d 178 (Elias).)
Was there good cause to extend 1382’s deadline because no judge was available?
In October 2022, about two years and seven months after the pandemic began, the Superior Court granted Tapia’s motion to dismiss his felony case because there was no available judge or courtroom to try the case by the time the section 1382 deadline expired. The Superior Court found that there was no good cause to extend section 1382’s deadline. The Riverside District Attorney seeks writ review of that decision.
This issue is whether the Superior Court properly found that there was no good cause to extend section 1382’s deadline because the unavailability of a judge and courtroom to try Tapia’s case, although “related to COVID,” was caused mainly by the court’s chronic backlog predating the pandemic. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Superior Court did not abuse its broad discretion under section 1382 in finding that good cause did not exist to grant a continuance. The Court denied the District Attorney’s writ petition.
Trial delays and motion to dismiss
In September 2020, the District Attorney filed charges against Tapia for felony assault with a deadly weapon. At the District Attorney’s request, the charges were dismissed at the preliminary hearing.
In February 2021, the District Attorney refiled a complaint against Tapia charging him with assault with a machete (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and alleging that he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Tapia was arraigned in March 2021.
After four continuances at the parties’ request, Tapia’s trial was set for January 12, 2022. Because jury trials had been suspended, Tapia’s trial was continued for 30 days. That order suspending jury trials—the last one the Superior Court issued—expired on February 25, 2022.10
After jury trials resumed, Tapia’s case was trailed multiple times in 30-day increments under the emergency order then in effect. On February 23, 2022, and again in March, April, and June 2022, Tapia’s trial was continued “due to courtroom unavailability.” In total, there were 12 continuances.
October 26, 2022, was the last day for Tapia’s trial under section 1382, but there were no available courtrooms. The trial court therefore set a hearing on Tapia’s opposed motion to dismiss under section 1382 for the next day.
The Superior Court found that there was no good cause to continue Tapia’ trial because although there were exceptional circumstances justifying a continuance in “acute” phases “early on in the pandemic,” the Superior Court had “moved into a period” where Tapia’s case (and the dozens dismissed after his) could not be timely tried because of the court’s “chronic” backlog that has existed since long before the pandemic. The backlog was “not caused by COVID to the extent that this becomes an exceptional set of circumstances” justifying a continuance under section 1382.
Applicable Law and Standard of Review
Under section 1382, subdivision (a)(2), “[t]he presumptive time period established by state law for bringing a felony case to trial is 60 days from the date a defendant is arraigned on an information or indictment.” (Engram, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1136.) If a felony case is not brought to trial within that deadline, the trial court “shall order the action to be dismissed” unless there is good cause for the delay. (§ 1382, subd. (a)(2).)
Good cause does not exist “when the lack of a judge or courtroom available to timely bring a criminal defendant to trial is fairly and reasonably attributable to the fault or neglect of the state.” (Engram, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1138.) Court congestion therefore does not constitute good cause unless it is caused by “ ‘exceptional circumstances.’ ” (Id. at p. 1145.)
The trial court has “broad discretion to determine whether good cause exists to grant a continuance of the trial.” (People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900.) A trial court’s good-cause determination is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. The trial court abuses its discretion only when its decision ‘exceeds the bounds of reason.’
The Superior Court reasonably found that, although the COVID-19 pandemic had contributed to the Superior Court’s backlog, the court’s chronic backlog predating the pandemic was the main reason why Tapia’s case (and dozens of other cases) could not be tried by section 1382’s deadline. The decision to dismiss Tapia’s case did not “exceed the bounds of reason” and was not an abuse of his broad discretion.
The Superior Court’s chronic congestion that has existed for nearly two decades. Tapia’s case could not timely be brought to trial because there was no available judge and that was “fairly attributable to the state’s failure, over a considerable period of time, to provide a number of judges sufficient to meet the needs of Riverside County’s rapidly growing population and caseload—a circumstance fairly attributable to the fault or neglect of the state.” (Engram, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1138.) The Court denied the District Attorney’s petition.
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.