Dews v. Appellate Division of the Superior Court
167 Cal. Rptr. 3d 375
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Petitioner arrested Jan 29, 2011 for DUI; case dismissed pending investigation on Feb 14, 2011; a misdemeanor complaint charging 23152(a),(b) issued after blood analysis; arrest warrant issued July 21, 2011; Petitioner arrested Feb 11, 2013 and arraigned Feb 20, 2013.
- Petitioner moved to dismiss on Apr 16, 2013 claiming violation of speed trial rights under federal and state constitutions; trial court denied without express Barker balancing.
- Appellate division denied petition for writ; Petitioner sought review under Code Civ. Proc., § 904.3.
- This court holds the 19-month delay was presumptively prejudicial triggering Barker analysis; the lower court erred by not expressly weighing Barker factors.
- Court agrees with People to remand for Barker balancing and rejects Bellante’s reading of Serna; Bellante disapproved to the extent inconsistent with this decision.
- Disposition: grant peremptory writ directing appellate division to vacate denial and conduct Barker balancing with explicit findings
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 19-month delay was presumptively prejudicial | Dews argues presumption of prejudice triggers dismissal | People contend Barker balancing is required to assess delay | Yes, presumptively prejudicial and Barker balancing required |
| Whether to apply Barker balancing or automatic dismissal | Delay not justified; Barker balancing unnecessary if prejudice presumed | Delay must be justified and Barker factors weighed | Barker balancing required; dismissal not automatic |
| Impact of Bellante on Serna and Barker framework | Bellante dictates automatic dismissal when delay >1 year | Bellante misreads Serna; Barker framework remains controlling | Bellante disapproved to the extent inconsistent; Barker framework applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. United States, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor Barker balancing test for speedy trial claims)
- Serna v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.3d 239 (Cal. 1985) (preserves Barker framework for federal speedy trial in misdemeanors; weighs factors when presumptive prejudice shown)
- Bellante v. Superior Court, 187 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 2010) (criticized for misreading Serna; inconsistent with Barker framework)
- Harris v. Municipal Court, 209 Cal. 55 (Cal. 1930) (presumptive prejudice standard rooted in early delays)
- Gutterman v. Municipal Court, 209 Cal. 65 (Cal. 1930) (early authority for presumptive prejudice in delays)
- Lowe v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 937 (Cal. 2007) (state constitution analysis; not controlling for federal Barker analysis)
- Williams v. People, 58 Cal.4th 197 (Cal. 2013) (federal speedy trial rights analyzed under Barker factors)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1992) (preserves that prejudice is one factor among Barker factors; not solo determinant)
- Ogle v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.App.4th 1007 (Cal. App. 1992) (review on Barker balancing in misdemeanor speedy trial)
- People v. Leaututufu v. Superior Court, 202 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 (Cal. App. 2011) (sliding scale balancing with government fault affecting prejudice)