230 Cal. App. 4th 709
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- July 24, 2012 felony complaint charged Lind and Murphy with conspiracy to commit perjury and perjury; no speedy-trial waivers by defendants.
- Preliminary hearing initially set for August 30, 2012, continued to September 13, 2012; Murphy sought disqualification of the prosecutor and Judge Dandona.
- Murphy moved to recuse Judge Dandona for cause; Judge Bennett in Ventura County granted the disqualification; case reassigned to Judge Eskin.
- Judge Eskin calendar for hearing on October 25, 2012; both sides sought continuances related to the disqualification and the preliminary hearing.
- November 7, 2012: court denied motion to recuse and denied setting aside information; Murphy and Lind proceeded to answer the information.
- February 6, 2013: Murphy moved to set aside the information under Penal Code section 995 asserting the 60-day limit was violated; trial court dismissed the information on June 6, 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a defendant's motion to disqualify toll the 60-day rule? | People: delays due to disqualification are tolling. | Lind, Murphy: tolling only if time not attributable to defense; no waiver. | Yes; disqualification tolls the 60-day period. |
| Should the information be dismissed when the 60-day deadline is tolled? | People: dismissal not proper; tolling preserves jurisdiction. | Lind and Murphy: dismissal required by 60-day rule when not waived. | No; dismissal reversed; remand for further proceedings. |
| Was the severance/joinder issue properly addressed when one defendant seeks disqualification? | People: trial court should preserve timely hearing for all defendants; severance not automatic. | Lind: court had duty to sever to protect his 60-day right; no automatic severance. | Lind forfeited severance claim; no court duty to sever sua sponte. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kowalski, 196 Cal.App.3d 174 (Cal. App. 1987) (tolls/exception to 60-day rule for delays caused by defendant's actions)
- Curry v. Superior Court, 75 Cal.App.3d 221 (Cal. App. 1977) (constitutional/administrative principles affect 10-day rule)
- In re Samano, 31 Cal.App.4th 984 (Cal. App. 1995) (absolute 10-day rule tempered by constitutional/administrative concerns)
- People v. Mackey, 176 Cal.App.3d 177 (Cal. App. 1985) (60-day rule; no implied suspension absent waiver)
- Ramos v. Superior Court, 146 Cal.App.4th 719 (Cal. App. 2007) (waiver by some defendants; effect on others not addressing defendant's motion)
- Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co., 217 Cal.App.2d 678 (Cal. App. 1963) (temporary suspension of jurisdiction affects time calculations)
- People v. Standish, 38 Cal.4th 858 (Cal. 2006) (statutory interpretation in context of speedy-exam rights)