38 Cal. App. 5th 1117
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Del Castillo was arraigned on a felony complaint on Dec. 28, 2018; preliminary hearing set and ultimately continued to Feb. 26, 2019 (the 60th day).
- Del Castillo was hospitalized on a 5150 hold and did not appear for several scheduled hearings in February 2019.
- On Feb. 26 the court sought more information from the hospital; no determination that transport to court would be detrimental had been made by that date.
- On Feb. 27 (the 61st day) the magistrate reported a conversation with Dr. Pratt concluding it would be detrimental to bring Del Castillo to court; the preliminary hearing began March 1.
- Del Castillo moved to dismiss under Penal Code §859b (preliminary hearing must commence within 60 days); the trial court denied the motion, finding good cause based on the 5150 hospitalization.
- The Court of Appeal granted a peremptory writ, directing the superior court to set aside the information because tolling under Welf. & Inst. Code §4011.6 was not established within the 60-day period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §859b requires dismissal where preliminary hearing did not commence within 60 days | Del Castillo: §859b is absolute; hearing not commenced within 60 days requires dismissal | People: 60-day period tolled because defendant was on a 5150 hold and §4011.6 tolled time | Held: §859b's 60-day limit is absolute; dismissal required because tolling under §4011.6 was not shown within 60 days |
| Whether §4011.6 automatically tolls §859b when defendant is hospitalized under §5150 | Del Castillo: No automatic tolling; tolling requires a facility determination made within 60 days | People: Hospitalization pursuant to §5150 justified tolling under §4011.6 | Held: §4011.6 tolls only if the person in charge determines arraignment/trial would be detrimental; no such determination appears before the 60th day here |
| Whether the magistrate’s post-60th-day conversation with hospital staff cures the §859b violation | Del Castillo: Post-deadline determinations cannot retroactively toll §859b | People: Court could rely on hospital communications and later proof of authority (remand) | Held: Too late — a determination made after the 60-day window cannot cure the violation; remand under §995a would not remedy the untimely determination |
| Whether remand under §995a could cure the defect | Del Castillo: §995a cannot cure a §859b timing violation | People: Remand could allow proof of hospital authority/determination | Held: §995a remand inappropriate; no authority that it can fix §859b violations and would not change that no timely determination existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramos v. Superior Court, 146 Cal.App.4th 719 (Cal. Ct. App.) (section 859b's 60-day rule is absolute; no good-cause exception applies)
- Ng v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.4th 29 (Cal. 1992) (Palma accelerated procedure appropriate when entitlement to relief is clear)
- Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners Inc., 36 Cal.3d 171 (Cal. 1984) (procedure allowing peremptory writ in the first instance when warranted)