Case Continued Past Last Day Due to COVID-19 – OK?

The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed by both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 15 of the California Constitution.

The purpose of the speedy trial right is to “(i) prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (2) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility the defense will be impaired.” Burgos v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal. App. 4th 817, 825.

To implement an accused’s constitutional right to a speedy trial, the Legislature enacted Penal Code § 1382. Section 1382 provides certain time periods within which an accused must be brought to trial. The statute provides that in a felony case, “the court shall dismiss the action when a defendant is not brought to trial within 60 days of his or her arraignment on an indictment or information unless: (1) the defendant enters a general waiver of the 60-day trial requirement, (2) the defendant requests or consents (expressly or impliedly) to setting of a trial date beyond the 60-day period) or (3) good cause is shown. People v. Sutton (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 533, 545; see also § 1382(a).

Good cause is most commonly associated with the unforeseen illness of counsel or the unavailability of witnesses or counsel.

Whether the COVID-19 pandemic and its lingering effects on trial court availability constitutes good cause has been a “hot topic,” not only for if it is good cause, but if it is, when does such good cause end?

In May 2022, the San Francisco District Attorney charged defendant Miguel Angel Estrada with attempted murder (Penal Code §§ 664, 187(a)); assault with a deadly weapon (Penal Code § 245(a)(1)); battery with serious bodily injury (Penal Code § 243(d)); mayhem (Penal Code § 203); and possession of a switchblade knife in a motor vehicle (Penal Code § 21510(a)), along with various enhancing allegations.

Estrada was arraigned on May 27, 2022 on these charges, entered a not guilty plea and requested a jury trial based on a no-time waiver basis. July 26, 2022 would be the last day for trial under Penal Code § 1382.

When July 26, 2022 arrived, both sides answered ready for trial, but there was no courtroom available and the judge found good cause to continue trial to September 28, 2022.

Similarly, in the same courthouse, Andrew Kuhaiki was charged by information with assault with a deadly weapon (Penal Code § 245(a)(1)), making criminal threats (Penal Code § 422); two counts of dissuading a witness by force or threat (Penal Code § 136(c)(1)); first degree residential burglary (Penal Code § 211); two counts of false imprisonment (Penal Code § 236); and inflicting injury on an elder or dependent adult likely to cause great bodily injury (Penal Code § 368(b)(1)).

On June 6, 2022, Kuhaiki was arraigned and entered a not guilty plea and requested a jury trial on a no-time waiver basis. The trial court called his case for trial on August 5, 2022, and no courtroom was available. The judge found good cause to continue trial based on “exceptional and extraordinary circumstances caused by the general pandemic.”

Both Estrada and Kuhaiki objected to the continuance and moved to dismiss their cases under Penal Code § 1382 as a deprivation of their constitutional right to a speedy trial. This motion was denied for each defendant. In denying the motions, the courts both cited to an unprecedented number of defendants who were insisting upon a speedy trial right, as if gamesmanship in this demand was at play to overload the court and take advantage of the 1382 violation to allow just such as a motion as that brought by Estrada and Kuhaiki.

Both defendants each then filed a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition seeking dismissal of their cases based on violation of their speedy trial rights.

The First Appellate District consolidated both writs into one and issued a ruling affirming the trial court’s finding of good cause based on the pandemic.

The First Appellate District Court cited to Hernandez-Valenzuela v. Superior Court (2022) 75 Cal. App. 5th 1108, wherein the First Appellate District addressed the same arguments, wherein petitioners argued that the inability to get cases to trial was really the result of chronic court mismanagement, including unused courtrooms, excessive judicial vacations, and failure to hold trials at the civic center courthouse and not the result of extraordinary circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court in Hernandez-Valenzuela rejected the chronic court mismanagement argument, further citing to continuing infections by COVID-19 by court staff and court staff family members, but cautioned that the courts cannot “perpetually cite to exceptional circumstances” to avoid dismissal under § 1382. At some future point, the court backlog should stop and such a motion to dismiss must be granted.

However, at the time of Estrada’s and Kuhaiki’s motion to dismiss in June and August, 2022, that point had not been reached.