Arnold v. Superior Court

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Citation94 Cal.Rptr. 589,16 Cal.App.3d 984
Decision Date22 April 1971
PartiesJerry Allen ARNOLD, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent, The PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 37960.

Page 589

94 Cal.Rptr. 589
16 Cal.App.3d 984
Jerry Allen ARNOLD, Petitioner,
The PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.
Civ. 37960.
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.
April 22, 1971.
Hearing Denied June 17, 1971.

Page 590

[16 Cal.App.3d 986] Robert G. Eckhoff, Public Defender, and Lloyd R. Nocker, Deputy Public Defender, Santa Barbara, for petitioner.

David D. Minier, Dist Atty., County of Santa Barbara, and Zel Canter, Deputy Dist. Atty., for real party in interest.

No appearance for respondent court.

KINGSLEY, Associate Justice.

On January 18, 1968, petitioner was charged by complaint in municipal court with robbery and with assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of sections 211 and 245 of the Penal Code. A warrant for his arrest duly issued but was never served, although he was in the county jail and in courts in Santa Barbara County during a large part of the year 1968. On December 9, 1968, he was arrested on a charge of murder, in violation of section 187 of the Penal Code. Thereafter, he was arraigned in municipal court, on January 9, 1969, on the robbery-assault complaint. That case proceeded through preliminary hearing and setting for trial, until, on March 11, 1969, it was continued on motion of the People because defendant had, in the interim, been tried and convicted on the murder charge.

While petitioner was in state prison on the murder conviction, and while his appeal from that judgment was pending, he demanded, pursuant to section 1381 of the Penal Code, that he be brought to trial on the robbery-assault case. That demand was honored and a trial took place, resulting, on October 29, 1969, in a hung jury. On November 4, 1969, when the case was called for a resetting, the People moved to dismiss and counsel for defendant stated that defendant would not oppose the motion. The record of those proceedings reads as follows:

'Mr. Cappello (Deputy District Attorney): * * * In light of the fact that Mr. Arnold is serving a life sentence for first degree murder, the District Attorney's Office will move to dismiss the case on the ground that we [16 Cal.App.3d 987] feel that presently, as our case presently stands, we don't have enough witnesses to convict Mr. Arnold of the robbery charge.

'Mr. Merenbach (Defense Counsel): We will not oppose the dismissal.

'The Court: On motion of the District Attorney and in the interest of justice for the reasons stated, the charges in the information are dismissed.'

Thereafter, petitioner's conviction on the murder charge was reversed by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Arnold v. McCarthy, 76-1421
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • January 13, 1978
    ...for a Writ of Prohibition to prevent the trial. Trial was continued pending disposition of the motion. See Arnold v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.App.3d 984, 94 Cal.Rptr. 589 (1971). Upon denial of the writ on April 22, 1971, Arnold appealed to the California Supreme Court. That court sustained t......
  • People v. Bilbrey, A150273
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 31, 2018
    ...908, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 833 ; People v. Hernandez (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 212 Cal.Rptr. 563 ; and Arnold v. Superior Court (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 984, 94 Cal.Rptr. 589.) Some of these and other cases suggest that the People's pending appeal can constitute good cause for delaying trial beyo......
  • People v. Hatt, 2d Crim. No. B283463
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 7, 2018
    ...The hearing on Hatt's application took place one week after the jury returned its guilty verdict. ( Arnold v. Superior Court (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 984, 987, 94 Cal.Rptr. 589 [continuance upheld when trial delayed due to pendency of related proceeding].)Hatt's claim that the trial court abuse......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT