Davis v. Superior Court
A152296
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- Gregory Davis was charged with felonies and initially waived the 10-court-day and 60-day preliminary-hearing timelines while in custody on November 3, 2016.
- On December 23, 2016, the preliminary hearing was suspended after the court declared a doubt as to Davis’s competency under Penal Code § 1368; criminal proceedings were suspended.
- On June 26, 2017, the court found Davis competent and reinstated criminal proceedings; the court set a preliminary hearing for August 4, 2017 (beyond 10 court days from reinstatement).
- Davis objected and requested a preliminary hearing within 10 court days of reinstatement under Penal Code § 859b, arguing any personal waiver must be made after reinstatement.
- The trial court denied Davis’s motion to dismiss under § 859b for failure to hold the preliminary hearing within 10 court days of reinstatement; Davis petitioned for a writ.
- The Court of Appeal granted relief, holding the trial court erred and directing dismissal because Davis had not personally waived the 10‑court‑day right after reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davis) | Defendant's Argument (People/AG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 859b requires a preliminary hearing within 10 court days after reinstatement when defendant had waived time before suspension | § 859b’s plain text triggers a new 10‑court‑day period on reinstatement; a valid personal waiver must occur after reinstatement to bar dismissal | Earlier personal waivers survive suspension; Love indicates § 859b does not require a fresh waiver on reinstatement | Court held § 859b requires the 10‑court‑day period from reinstatement and personal waiver must be made within that period; dismissal required because Davis did not waive after reinstatement |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Love, 132 Cal.App.4th 276 (2005) (addressed whether prior out‑of‑custody time waivers prevent § 859b dismissal upon subsequent custody; court declined to read a new-waiver requirement into § 859b for bench-warrant recapture situations)
- People v. Figueroa, 11 Cal.App.5th 665 (2017) (discussed timing of plea/arraignment as triggering events for § 859b and waiver timing after reinstatement)
- In re Derrick B., 39 Cal.4th 535 (2006) (explains rules of statutory construction and use of extrinsic aids when statutory language admits multiple interpretations)
- People v. Trevino, 26 Cal.4th 237 (2001) (statutory interpretation principles cited for ascertaining legislative intent)