People v. Tucker, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1313

Appellant Jesse Alan Tucker was convicted by jury of grand theft of an automobile and receiving stolen property, with a prior prison term enhancement, and sentenced to four years in state prison.
He was awarded 259 days of custody credit: 173 days actual custody and 86 days local conduct credit.
Trial proceedings began with an October 22, 2009 call for trial; the prosecution requested termination and re-arraignment, which Tucker consented to under section 1387.2, and the matter was continued with a last-trial date set for December 21, 2009.
On December 18, 2009 Tucker did not appear because he was in a facility under quarantine due to the H1N1 influenza outbreak; his trial counsel did not waive speedy trial rights, and the court found good cause for his absence.
The case was next called on December 21, 2009; Tucker again could not appear due to quarantine, and on December 28, 2009 he moved to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rights; the court denied the motion, noting prior judges had found good cause for continuances.
The district court later modified the judgment to award Tucker 86 additional days of presentence local conduct credit, resulting in a total of 345 days of presentence credit (173 actual custody + 172 conduct); the judgment as modified was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Speedy-trial delay due to quarantine was proper good cause?	Tucker contends no waiver and no good cause for the delay.	Tucker argues trial should have proceeded promptly absent consent and good cause.	Delay affirmed as having good cause due to quarantine and public health needs.
Whether Tucker is entitled to additional presentence local conduct credit beyond 86 days?	Tucker asserts more conduct credit should be awarded under § 4019.	State contends existing credit calculation is correct.	Unpublished portion modifies judgment to award an additional 86 days of presentence local conduct credit; total 345 days credited.

In re Venable, 86 Cal.App.2d 585 (Cal.App.2d 1927) (epidemic quarantine can justify delay in trial)
People v. Memro, 11 Cal.4th 786 (Cal. 1995) (abuse-of-discretion standard for continuances)
Baustert v. Superior Court, 129 Cal.App.4th 1269 (Cal.App.4th 2005) (discretionary continuance must be rational and not capricious)
People v. Rodrigues, 8 Cal.4th 1060 (Cal. 1994) (guidance on trial delay and good cause standards)
People v. Jordan, 42 Cal.3d 308 (Cal. 1986) (standard for reviewing trial-continuance decisions)
People v. Anderson, 25 Cal.4th 543 (Cal. 2001) (assessment of prejudice in speedy-trial claims)
People v. Martinez, 22 Cal.4th 750 (Cal. 2000) (prejudice analysis for speedy-trial claims under state constitution)