 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Hodges3/25/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Sometime on or after April 7, 1988, defendant, a drug user, stabbed his great aunt to death, inflicting approximately 30 stab wounds and fracturing numerous bones. Defendant had moved in with the victim (Ollie Waters) and his great uncle in 1987. His great uncle died later that year and Waters apparently was comforted by defendant's continued presence. Eventually, however, the relationship deteriorated as defendant began haranguing Waters for money.
After Mr. Waters' death, Waters' granddaughter (Boykin) began visiting and calling Waters several times a week. At some point, Waters had Boykin take her to the bank where Waters took $13,000 in cash out of her safe deposit box and put it in a cedar chest at her home.
On April 3, 1988, Waters cried and complained to Boykin that defendant was putting pressure on her for money. Boykin visited Waters on April 7. Defendant was there. This was the last time anyone other than defendant saw Waters alive. The police found her decomposing body on April 14. The cash was missing from the cedar chest. There were no signs of forced entry into the house. Waters and defendant were the only persons with keys to the house.
Waters was in the habit of retrieving and opening her mail every day. Unopened mail in her home was postmarked April 6 and later.
Police arrested defendant in early May 1988. A deputy district attorney rejected the case. A fugitive warrant from Texas resulted in defendant's extradition. He served several years in prison there.
The information charging defendant with Waters' murder was filed December 13, 2000. A jury convicted him of second degree murder and the trial court imposed a prison sentence of 15 years to life.
DISCUSSION
I.
Defendant says the delay in prosecuting him violated his right to a speedy trial and deprived him of due process and a fair trial.
" nder California as well as federal law, the right to a speedy trial clearly attaches after an arrest or the filing of an indictment or information. [Citation.] [ ] Unlike federal law, however, this state has extended the right to the preindictment and prearrest stage, holding that it attaches under article I, section 15, of our Constitution after a complaint has been filed. [Citation.] But the consequence of a violation depends upon the stage at which a violation of the right occurs. The right to a speedy trial following the filing of an indictment or information and the time limitations applicable thereto are set forth by statute [citation] and a violation of the statute is presumed to be prejudicial. [Citation.] A violation at a prior stage depends upon a balancing of the prejudicial effect of the delay and the justification therefore. [Citations.]" (Scherling v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 493, 504, fns. omitted, italics added.)
"If defendant fails to show prejudice the court need not inquire into the justification for the delay (since there is nothing to `weigh' such justification against). [Citations.]" (People v. Lawson (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 194, 198.)
Accordingly, defendant must demonstrate prejudice before he is entitled to relief. We need not determine whether Scherling provides that the right to a speedy trial attaches after an arrest that does not result in charges. Since, as discussed b
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|