Wilborn v. Superior Court
Filed 5/19/06 Wilborn v. Superior Court CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
RONNIE WILBORN, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. |
A113772
(San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 198003) |
Petitioner contends in this writ proceeding that respondent superior court should have dismissed the criminal charges against him due to respondent's failure to adhere to statutory speedy trial deadlines. (Pen. Code, § 1382, subd. (a)(2).)[1] We agree, and will order issuance of a peremptory writ of prohibition.
Background
Petitioner never waived time for speedy trial purposes and it is undisputed that the 60th and last day for trial in petitioner's felony case fell on May 8, 2006.
On May 8, 2006, at approximately 9:45 a.m., the master calendar judge assigned petitioner's trial to Department 318. The parties arrived in the courtroom shortly after 10:00 a.m. The courtroom clerk revealed to petitioner's counsel that the judge was not present and would not be present until 11:30 a.m., after which the court would break for lunch. The parties were then directed to return at 1:00 p.m.
When petitioner's counsel returned to the courtroom around 12:45 p.m., she learned that the judge was already presiding over another ongoing trial (hereafter trial in progress), which was set to reconvene at 1:30 p.m. At approximately 1:15 p.m., the parties conferred in chambers with the judge, and discussed the facts of the case, the pending offer to petitioner, and trial scheduling.
At some point thereafter, the parties went on the record. The court stated that â€
