Dismissal of charges for violation of right to speedy trial based on COVID-19 pandemic

Mendoza v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco (Cal. Ct. App., June 15, 2024, No. A170135) 2024 WL 3408756, at *1–2

Summary: Mendoza appealed an order denying a motion to dismiss misdemeanor charges against her for violation of the speedy trial statute, Penal Code section 1382. The superior court denied her motion based on the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic which constituted exceptional and extraordinary circumstances warranting a finding of good cause for the delay.

The issue of whether there was good cause for the delay was not properly before the Court of Appeal. The People conceded there was no good cause. Because there was no competent evidence to support the court’s order the Court of Appeal directed the superior court to grant the motion to dismiss.

Background

In a misdemeanor complaint filed on October 14, 2021, Mendoza was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)), driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)), and a traffic infraction (Veh. Code, § 24250), along with allegations associated with the first two charges relating to Mendoza’s blood alcohol content (Veh. Code, §§ 23538, subd. (b)(2), 23578)). On February 7, 2023, Mendoza withdrew her general time waiver and requested a speedy trial. The court set March 9, 2023 as the last day for trial.

On March 9, 2023, the superior court continued Mendoza’s trial to June 9, 2023, three months past the statutory deadline, as part of a “batch” of trial continuances that were supported by a standard order finding good cause for the continuance due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Mendoza objected. The trial was later continued to August 8, 2023, although the court did not explain the reason for the continuance and made no finding of good cause. On August 8, 2023, the court denied Mendoza’s motion to dismiss “for the reasons stated in the written order.” The matter was continued again to October 6, 2023.

Both sides announced they were ready to proceed on October 6, 2023. The court stated it was “going to pass” the case and later continued the trial to October 12, 2023, along with a “batch” of other cases. On October 12, 2023, the court announced that October 16, 2023 was the last day for trial but then later continued the trial again to November 8, 2023, “pursuant to its COVID order.” The court subsequently continued the trial to January 17, 2024 and set a new last day for trial of January 29, 2024. The court offered no explanation to justify the delay.

The case was called on January 17, 2024, but the court announced it had no available courtrooms and continued the matter to March 15, 2024. The court noted it took this action over Mendoza’s objection and denied a motion to dismiss under section 1382 without prejudice pending further briefing by both parties.

Mendoza filed a motion to dismiss for a statutory speedy trial violation. (§ 1382.) Petitioner pointed out that the various COVID-19 emergency orders issued by the City of San Francisco, the Chief Justice, and the Governor, among others, had expired. Mendoza argued that the court had failed to use available courtrooms in San Francisco’s Civic Center courthouse. Mendoza claimed that the misdemeanor calendar department’s irregular calendaring practices had driven the backlog of cases.

Speedy trial statute, Penal Code section 1382

Section 1382 prescribes certain time periods within which a criminal defendant must be brought to trial. (§ 1382, subd. (a).) In a misdemeanor case, a court “shall” dismiss the action if it is not brought to trial within the time specified in section 1382 “unless good cause to the contrary is shown” or the defendant otherwise waives the statutory time period or consents to commencing trial beyond the statutory last day to do so. (§ 1382, subd. (a).) The prosecution bears the burden of demonstrating good cause for any delay. When the superior court denies a motion to dismiss under section 1382, “the defendant may seek pretrial writ review without demonstrating prejudice from the delay of trial.” (People v. Egbert (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 503.)

Violation of right to speedy trial in hundreds of cases in SanFrancisco

There are hundreds of misdemeanor cases in the superior court that are beyond the statutory last day to commence trial under section 1382. Many of the defendants in those cases sought dismissal on the same basis as Mendoza. The superior court is denying all similar section 1382 motions in misdemeanor cases with the same standard order used in this case. An unpublished decision in this case has no binding effect in other cases, no matter how similar they may be. By publishing this case on a “legal issue of continuing public interest” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c)(6)), we give it stare decisis effect and create binding precedent that the superior court and its appellate division are obliged to follow.

Disposition

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent superior court to vacate its order of March 15, 2024 denying petitioner Mendoza’s motion to dismiss pursuant to section 1382 and to enter a new and different order granting the motion.

 

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.