Defendant seeking dismissal for a speedy trial violation under the state constitution must affirmatively demonstrate prejudice

People v. Martinez (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 7, 2025, No. E082657) 2025 WL 429628

Summary: Martinez was charged with grand theft, acting as  contractor without a license, requiring a downpayment in excess of $1,000, and unlawfully receiving payments in excess of the work performed, filed motion to dismiss based on a violation of his rights to a speedy trial. The Superior Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. People appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeal held that:

A delay of 46-months between filing of complaint and arraignment was presumptively prejudicial for purpose of determining whether People violated defendant’s federal misdemeanor speedy trial rights; trial court abused its discretion in determining that defendant’s federal speedy trial rights had been violated; remand was required for court to conduct the requisite federal speedy trial analysis; defendant failed to affirmatively demonstrate actual prejudice caused by 46-month delay between filing of the complaint and arraignment, as required for dismissal of felony charge of grand theft based on speedy trial violation under the state constitution; and trial court erred to the extent it granted defendant’s motion to dismiss misdemeanor charges based on misdemeanor state constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Background

Walrath, a licensed plumber, was present when his mother in law, Jelley contracted with Msrtinez to construct a pool in her backyard on January 21, 2017. The total contract price was for $26,900. Martinez said that he was a licensed contractor.

Boeck, an investigator for the Department of Consumer Affairs, Contractors State Licensing Board (CSLB), testified that any construction work for over $500 requires a license. Martinez obtained the permit for the construction of Jelley’s pool but never had a contractor’s license. The CSLB had issued three prior administrative citations to defendant for contracting without a license.

On January 25, 2018, the People charged defendant by felony complaint with grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a), count 1), acting in the capacity of a contractor without a license (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7028, subd. (a), count 2), requiring a downpayment in excess of $1,000 or 10 percent of the contract amount (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7159.5, subd. (a)(3), count 3), and unlawfully receiving payments in excess of the work performed (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7159.5, subd. (a)(5), count 4).2 The court arraigned defendant on the complaint on December 9, 2021.

On February 7, 2023,the court held the preliminary hearing, after which it held defendant to answer. On February 15, 2023, the People charged defendant by information with the same offenses in the complaint.

On September 18, 2023, Martinez filed a “motion to dismiss based on pre-filing delay resulting in prejudice.”

The court asked the People, “What effort, if any, was made by law enforcement to make an arrest after January 26, 2018?” The People responded, “That, I don’t know.” “I know that by and large once COVID happened, they were stopping doing sweeps for outstanding felony warrants, but I don’t know of any attempt to actually serve him.” The court replied, “I don’t think to issue a warrant, put it in the system, and do absolutely nothing when you have an investigator who knows about the case—I’m granting the motion to dismiss.”

Law on right to speedy trial

The  federal constitutional right to a speedy trial “is distinct from the state constitutional right to a speedy trial and is analyzed differently ….” (Dews v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 660, 664 (Dews).)

Felony Federal Speedy Trial Right

“It is settled that, for federal constitutional purposes, attachment of the right to speedy trial occurs only upon ‘ “either a formal indictment or information or else the actual restraints imposed by arrest and holding to answer a criminal charge.” ’ [Citation.] The filing of a felony complaint does not trigger federal speedy trial protection on the charged crimes.  “Unlike the filing of a misdemeanor complaint, the filing of a felony complaint does not trigger federal speedy trial right protection because ‘[a] felony complaint, unlike a misdemeanor complaint, does not confer trial jurisdiction. It invokes only the authority of a magistrate, not that of a trial court.” (Ibid. at fn. 7.)

Martinez has no federal speedy trial right based on prefiling delay. To the extent the court below dismissed thecharge based on defendant’s federal speedy trial right, the court erred.

Federal Misdemeanor Speedy Trial Right

“ ‘Under the federal Constitution … the speedy trial right … attach[es] upon the filing of … a complaint charging a misdemeanor.’ ” (Benhoor, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1316.)

The trial court is required “to determine ‘whether [the] delay before trial was uncommonly long, whether the government or the criminal defendant is more to blame for that delay, whether, in due course, the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial, and whether he suffered prejudice as the delay’s result.’ [Citation.]” (Dews, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 665) [“[T]he court must balance the relevant factors—the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of the right, and the prejudice to the defendant—in assessing whether the delay has deprived the defendant of that right.”].) “None of the four factors is ‘either a necessary or sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial. Rather, they are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant.

“A delay of more than one year in a misdemeanor case is presumptively prejudicial …. [Citation.]” (Dews, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 665)

Here, the 46-month delay between the filing of the complaint and defendant’s arraignment was presumptively prejudicial. Thus, the court was required to weigh the four factors in conducting the “ ‘difficult and sensitive balancing process’ ” as to whether the People violated defendant’s federal misdemeanor speedy trial rights by the delay. (Dews, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 665.)

State Felony Constitutional Speedy Trial Right

“Unlike its federal counterpart, the speedy trial guarantee under the state Constitution is triggered by the filing of a felony complaint.

“ ‘[W]hen a defendant seeks dismissal based on delay after the filing of the complaint and before indictment or holding to answer on felony charges, a court must weigh “the prejudicial effect of the delay on defendant against any justification for the delay.” No presumption of prejudice arises from delay after the filing of the complaint and before arrest or formal accusation by indictment or information [citation]; rather, the defendant seeking dismissal must affirmatively demonstrate prejudice [citation].’

The showing of actual prejudice must be made on competent evidence and ‘must be supported by particular facts and not … by bare conclusionary statements.’ [Citation.]

Here, the defendant failed to affirmatively demonstrate actual prejudice, rather than the mere possibility of prejudice. To the extent the court granted defendant’s motion on count based on his state constitutional right to a speedy trial, it abused its discretion.

Misdemeanor State Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial

“The [state] right to a speedy trial attaches when a person is arrested, or a misdemeanor complaint is filed, whichever occurs first. [Citation.]” (Dews, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 665) “ ‘Under the state Constitution, by contrast, the filing of a felony [or misdemeanor] complaint is sufficient to trigger speedy trial protection.’ [Citations.]”].)

Where the defendant challenges “only prearrest delay, … the question to be decided by the trial court was whether the delay was shown to be unreasonable. Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice. The court erred to the extent it granted defendant’s motion based on his misdemeanor state constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Disposition

The court’s order dismissing the case is reversed. On the felony charge, the court is directed to enter an order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss with respect to both his federal and state constitutional rights to a speedy trial. On the misdemeanor charges, the court is directed to enter an order denying defendant’s motion with respect to his state constitutional right to a speedy trial. With respect to defendant’s federal constitutional right to a speedy trial as to the misdemeanor charges, we remand the matter with directions to the court to conduct an analysis of the requisite four factors and articulate its reasons for granting or denying the motion. (Dews, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 665, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 375.)

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.