PEOPLE v. ANTHONY PRICE
Violations of statutory requirements that petition for extension of commitment of sexually violent predator be filed at least 90 days and that trial commence at least 30 days prior to expiration of previous commitment were prejudicial where defense counsel could not have properly prepared for trial within the statutory time frame. Unexplained failure of district attorney's office to respond to state hospital's paperwork, resulting in what trial court characterized as a "huge clerical error," did not constitute good cause for extension of statutory deadline for filing of petition to extend commitment. Fact that defendant ultimately received a fair trial on merits did not "cure" prejudice he suffered as a result of having his release delayed so that his counsel could prepare for trial, so erroneous denial of motion to dismiss on timeliness grounds was not harmless.
Comments on PEOPLE v. ANTHONY PRICE