 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Haendiges3/24/1983
California Appellate Department, Superior Court
Crim. A. Nos. 18789, 18790, 18791, 18792
191 Cal.Rptr. 785, 1983.CA.40950
March 24, 1983
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
JAMES HAENDIGES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT
Municipal Court for the Los Angeles Judicial District of Los Angeles County, Nos. 635730, 736485, 741587 and 729674, James E. Satt, Judge.
Barbara Turner for Defendant and Appellant.
Ira Reiner, City Attorney, Jack L. Brown and Arthur B. Walsh, Deputy City Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Opinion by Rothman, J., with Bernstein, P. J., concurring. Separate concurring opinion by Foster, J.
Rothman
Defendant was convicted of several offenses relating to his driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. The trial judge imposed a number of maximum consecutive misdemeanor sentences in county jail that totaled four years and three months. In addition to challenging this sentence, defendant raises several other claims of error on appeal.
I. Issues Other Than Sentencing
A. Speedy Trial Claim
Defendant was arrested on December 5, 1979, for violations of Vehicle Code sections 23106, 14601 and 12500. Numerous prior convictions were alleged.
Defendant was arraigned on April 2, 1980, and agreed to a trial date of June 4.
The judge's minutes of June 4th reveal: "On motion of defense . . . and good cause appearing, the case is continued to 7/30/80. . . . Defendant waives time for trial and stipulates that the People may have a further continuance, if necessary."
On June 30th the minutes of the judge indicate that the case was continued to September 25, 1980, on motion of the defense with a stipulation to People's further continuance.
On September 25, counsel for both sides appeared for trial. Defendant was not in court because he was serving a one-year sentence in county jail on another matter. A "removal order" was issued and on Friday, September 26, defendant still was not in court. The court granted a People's request to continue the case to Monday, September 29 over defendant's objection.
On September 29 the case was trailed to September 30 and the court granted the People's motion to continue the case to October 30. Defendant objected. The court allowed the continuance based on defendant's earlier stipulation to a People's continuance. The court treated the stipulation as a "time waiver" by defendant and concluded that it "was not conditioned on a showing of good cause . . . ." The deputy city attorney present thought the continuance was required because of the unavailability of witnesses.
On October 30, defendant was in custody, and defense counsel objected to trailing the case to November 6 for pretrial motions and trial. On November 7, after certain proceedings in the master calendar court, discussed further under section I-B infra of this opinion, the case was assigned to a trial court.
Defendant moved to dismiss the case under Penal Code section 1382 on the ground that the People were not allowed to continue the case while defendant remained in custody. The court denied defendant's motion on the ground that good cause was shown by the People for a 30-day continuance because a witness was "o
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|