 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Rodriguez6/30/2003
THE COURT
Appellant, Anthony Paul Rodriguez, pled no contest to possession of PCP (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)). On appeal, Rodriguez contends he was denied his right to a speedy trial. We will affirm.
FACTS
On March 25, 2001, at approximately 1:45 a.m., Rodriguez was stopped in Kern County by a sheriff's deputy for playing his music too loud. After determining Rodriguez was on parole, the deputy searched the car and found three cigarettes containing PCP. The deputy also had Rodriguez perform several field sobriety tests and determined he was under the influence of PCP.
After his arrest, a parole hold was placed on Rodriguez and he was subsequently incarcerated in state prison.
On April 4, 2001, the Kern County District Attorney filed a complaint in this matter and a warrant issued for Rodriguez's arrest.
On July 12, 2001, while serving a parole violation term, Rodriguez submitted a request for a warrant check indicating he believed he had a Kern County warrant outstanding. On August 7, 2001, the Department of Corrections erroneously advised Rodriguez that there was no warrant for him.
On October 11, 2001, after serving his parole term, Rodriguez was arrested on the warrant issued in this case and arraigned the following day.
After a preliminary hearing on October 25, 2001, Rodriguez was held to answer on the charges in the complaint.
On October 31, 2001, the district attorney issued an information in this matter.
On November 6, 2001, Rodriguez was arraigned on the information and waived time for trial.
On December 20, 2001, Rodriguez filed a motion to dismiss alleging that his right to a speedy trial under the state and federal Constitutions and under Penal Code section 1381 had been violated. In his moving papers, Rodriguez appeared to argue that the delay in prosecuting him prejudiced him because he had two jobs and he was taking care of his grandmother.
On January 3, 2002, at a hearing on Rodriguez's motion, defense counsel argued that Rodriguez was prejudiced by the delay in prosecuting him because he had two jobs and he was getting married. In denying Rodriguez's motion, the court, in pertinent part, found that the district attorney was not responsible for the clerical error of the Department of Corrections and that Rodriguez was not prejudiced by the delay in prosecuting the underlying action. The court then denied Rodriguez's motion to dismiss.
On January 11, 2002, Rodriguez entered a plea in this matter.
On April 15, 2002, the court sentenced Rodriguez to the middle term of two years on his possession of PCP conviction and a concurrent six-month term on his driving under the influence conviction. The court also awarded Rodriguez presentence custody credit for the time Rodriguez served on his parole violation.
DISCUSSION
Rodriguez contends that the court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to dismiss because denial of the motion resulted in a denial of his statutory and state constitutional right to a speedy trial. We will reject this contention.
"Ordinarily, a defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere may not appeal on the ground of denial of speedy trial. This is because such a claim usually involves whether the passage of time frustrated the defendant's ability to prove innocence, an issue removed from the case by the defendant's admission of guilt. [Citation.] An exception has been made in cases involving the statutory form of speedy trial r
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|