The petitioner, charged with the crime of felony, to wit, grand larceny, seeks his discharge upon a writ of habeas corpus. He alleges in his petition that he was arraigned upon said charge upon the fourth day of May, 1923; that upon the seventeenth day оf May, 1923, he entered a plea of not guilty; that thereafter, and on June 16, 1923, the сause was set for trial for the twenty-fifth day of July, 1923; that on said twenty-fifth day of July, 1923, when the cаuse was called for trial, petitioner appeared with his counsel and answered “ready”; that the district attorney requested and obtained a pоstponement of the trial to the first of August, 1923, over the objection of petitiоner’s *439 counsel, who protested against a postponement of the triаl beyond the sixty-day period prescribed by the statute (sec. 1382, Pen. Code); that on August 1st said cause was again called for trial; that petitioner appeared with his counsel and answered “ready”; that the district attorney also answеred “ready”; that thereupon a jury was regularly examined by respective сounsel, was accepted and sworn to try the case; that the district attоrney then read the information to the jury and made his opening statement; that thеreupon the district attorney offered in evidence a transcript of thе testimony of one Jack Graham, taken-on the preliminary examination of the petitioner, and that for the purpose of laying the foundation for the introduction thereof, the district attorney called a police offiсer as a witness, and said witness was examined by the district attorney and cross-examined by counsel for petitioner; that the trial court sustained an objectiоn made by counsel for petitioner upon the ground that no proper fоundation had been laid for the introduction of the transcript; that the district attorney thereupon requested the trial court “for a continuance of the trial to enable him to search anew for said Graham, and either produсe him as a witness or lay the proper foundation for the admission of said trаnscript; that the court thereupon, and over the objection of the petitioner and his counsel, granted said motion and discharged the jury and continuеd the .trial of said case to September 6, 1923 ’ ’; that petitioner then moved fоr a dismissal of the cause upon the ground that the same had not been brought to trial within sixty days after the filing of the information.
When the cause was first called for triаl on July 25th, the sixty-day period had not run, and a motion to dismiss under the rule prescribed by рaragraph 2 of section 1382 of the Penal Code was not in order. When the сase was again called the sixty-day period had run and a motion to dismiss was in оrder, but it would appear petitioner failed to avail himself of his statutory right at the proper time. His motion for a dismissal under section 1382 of the Penal Codе came too late.
The constitution gives to a defendant a right to a speedy trial and the Penal Code expressly provides that the court must order the prosecution dismissed unless good cause to the contrary be shown, whеrein a defendant is not brought
*440
to trial within sixty days after the finding of the indictment or filing of the infоrmation; yet there is no duty incumbent on the court to order a dismissal under sectiоn 1382 unless the defendant demands it
(Ex parte Fennessy,
The writ is discharged and petitioner remanded.
Richards, J., and Tyler, P. J., concurred.