Elias v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.

• Decision Date: 17 May 2022
• Docket Number: D079425
• Citation: 78 Cal.App.5th 926,294 Cal.Rptr.3d 178
• Parties: Ruben ELIAS, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; The People, Real Party in Interest.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

78 Cal.App.5th 926

294 Cal.Rptr.3d 178

Ruben ELIAS, Petitioner,

v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent;The People, Real Party in Interest.

D079425

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Filed May 17, 2022

Randy Wagner, Enid, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Summer Stephan, District Attorney, Linh Lam, Valerie Ryan, and Elizabeth Renner, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.

HUFFMAN, J.

I.INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Ruben Elias is awaiting trial on charges arising from several alleged incidents of domestic violence that occurred in March and April 2020, during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early March 2020, the Governor of California declared a state of emergency in California, and the President declared a national emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on health recommendations, the Chief Justice of the State of California issued statewide emergency orders suspending in-person jury trials and, among other things, extending statutory deadlines for trials in criminal proceedings. The Chief Justice authorized local courts to adopt local rules to address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Presiding Judge of the San Diego Superior Court issued a general order in April 2020 closing courtrooms and extending the time period provided in Penal Code ¹ section 1382 for holding criminal trials. The health and safety concerns associated with the pandemic along with public health orders from the State of California and the County of San Diego caused "substantial operational impediments for the court." The superior court issued a series of general orders that, among other things, extended the time for holding criminal trials by 30 days at a time. Those orders remain in effect.²

Elias was arraigned on May 13, 2020 and the court held him to answer the charges against him on May 27, 2020. He was arraigned on the information in June 2020, and on an amended information in August 2020. His trial was initially set in October 2020, but it was continued several times until June 2021 based on the COVID-19 general orders and instances when Elias was in medical isolation.³

After the trial court granted two additional trial continuances on June 24 and July 6, 2021, and denied his motion to dismiss on August 9, 2021, Elias filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus contending the court violated his right to a speedy trial pursuant to section 1382 and the federal Constitution. We construed the petition as a petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition requesting dismissal of the case for violation of Elias's speedy trial right, ordered respondent to show cause why relief should not be granted, and stayed all trial court proceedings pending further order of this court.⁴ We have considered the return of the real party in interest, the People, Elias's reply, and oral argument.

There is no question that the realities of the pandemic shutdowns and related limitations have substantially inhibited the ability of the court system to bring criminal cases to trial within normal statutory time frames. Hundreds of in-custody criminal defendants are still awaiting trial. Given the unique and unprecedented circumstances caused by the global public health emergency, courts must exercise their inherent power to manage and prioritize their cases to work through the backlog. The record before us shows the court did just that. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in finding good cause to grant the continuances or in denying Elias's motion to dismiss. We, therefore, deny the petition.

II.BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background⁵

Elias started dating D.M. in October 2019 and they began living together shortly thereafter. Their relationship was punctuated by domestic violence over four of the six months they dated. In January 2020, Elias struck D.M. in the stomach, arms, and legs after learning that they both contracted a sexually transmitted disease

. In February 2020, Elias again struck her in the stomach, arms, and legs while they were inside a vehicle. When they got to their residence, Elias struck D.M. on the back of the head and she lost consciousness. She awoke in a bathtub with Elias leaning over her and crying. He said he thought he had killed her.

During an argument in March 2020, Elias grabbed D.M. by the throat and applied so much pressure that she saw dots, became disoriented, felt she was blacking out, and urinated herself. She had difficulty breathing and feared for her life.

D.M. did not report the violent incidents because Elias threatened her. He said he had killed someone before and he had gotten away with it. He also said his family members, who were gangsters, would kill her and her children if he was arrested. He said he would do anything to not go back to prison and he would rather kill her than go to jail.

In early April 2020, they again argued about the sexually transmitted disease

and about D.M.'s ex-boyfriend. Elias struck D.M. multiple times with the wooden handle of a plunger. D.M. had linear marks and bruises all over her body consistent with a plunger handle. She also had a scrape on her forearm she said she sustained when the plunger handle broke. She did not report the incident because Elias threatened to kill her if she reported anything.

On April 29, 2020, the couple argued again about the same issues. Elias struck D.M. in the back of her head causing her to fall forward to the bathroom floor. Elias forced her head toward the water in the toilet bowl, saying he was going to drown her. During the struggle, D.M.'s face hit the porcelain toilet bowl and a substantial piece of her tooth was knocked out. Elias said, " ‘Look what you made me do.’ " He made D.M. get the tooth fixed because he could not be seen with a girlfriend who was missing a tooth. D.M. had constant pain on the side of her face after this incident and she could not eat due to the pain.

Elias said he would hurt her so badly that she would not be able to walk again and that he would make her disappear. She decided to report the abuse because she was afraid that she would not be able to care for her children if he followed through on his threats. D.M. went to the police on May 4, 2020, and reported the abuse.

B. Procedural Background

Elias is charged with three counts of corporal injury to a spouse and/or roommate ( § 273.5, subd. (a) ; counts 1 [incident between 3/1-31/20], 4 [incident between 4/1-28/20], and 6 [4/29/20 incident]), three counts of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury ( § 245, subd. (a)(4) ; counts 2 [incident between 3/1-31/20], 3 [incident between 4/1-28/20], and 5 [4/29/20 incident]), and one count of making a criminal threat ( § 422 ; count 7 [4/29/20 incident]). The third amended information alleges he committed counts 3 through 6 while he was on state prison parole following a term of imprisonment for a 2011 conviction of serious or violent felony ( §§ 206 [torture], 1203.085, subd. (a)) and that in committing counts 5 and 6, he inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence ( § 12022.7, subd. (e) ). It also alleges he was convicted of a serious felony prior ( §§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 668, and 1192.7, subd. (c) ) and prior strike convictions ( §§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, and 668 ).

Elias was arraigned on May 13, 2020. The court held Elias to answer all counts and allegations after the preliminary hearing on May 27, 2020. He was arraigned on the information in June 2020 and on an amended information in August 2020.

After several continuances based on the superior court's emergency general orders and Elias's unavailability due to medical isolation, the matter came on for trial call on June 17, 2021. The court continued the trial call because Elias did not consent to appear in a closed remote proceeding.

Elias appeared on June 21, 2021, and his defense attorney answered ready for trial. The prosecutor requested either a 30-day continuance based on the court's general order, or a short continuance within the prosecutor's trailing window because the People were not ready and planned to subpoena witnesses that day.

The court explained to Elias that if a courtroom was not available it could continue the trial 30 days under the general orders. However, the court stated a courtroom was available that day, so it continued the matter three days at the request of the prosecutor.

The prosecutor issued trial subpoenas pursuant to the standard office procedures and learned that same day that the officer who took D.M.'s statements and documented her injuries had been out of state on vacation since the beginning of June and would not return until after July 4, 2021. The prosecutor moved to continue the trial pursuant to section 1050 based on the unavailability of a necessary and material witness.

On June 24, 2021, over the defendant's objection, the court granted the People's continuance request due to witness unavailability. Defense counsel advised the court that she would be unavailable after July 12 and questioned whether trial could be completed before that date. The court set the new trial for July 6, 2021, saying they would deal with the scheduling issue then.

On July 6, 2021, defense counsel answered ready before the Supervising Judge in the criminal master calendar department. The prosecutor asked to trail the case saying the People were not ready. The prosecutor estimated a one-week trial from when the witnesses would be available, which she stated was not that day. Defense counsel objected to trailing, saying she did not want to extend the case. Defense counsel said she was scheduled for a vacation between July 13 and 20, 2021. The Supervising Judge denied the People's request to trail and sent the matter to a courtroom.

The assigned trial judge, however, stated it had only two and a half days available for a trial within the next week to try a case with a one-week estimate. The...