Estrada v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 28 February 2023
• Docket Number: A166474,A166508
• Parties: MIGUEL ANGEL ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Real Party in Interest. ANDREW KUHAIKI, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Real Party in Interest.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

1

MIGUEL ANGEL ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent;

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Real Party in Interest.

ANDREW KUHAIKI, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent;

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Real Party in Interest.

A166474, A166508

California Court of Appeals, First District, First Division

February 28, 2023

Certified for Publication 3/2/23

San Francisco City and County Superior Court Nos. 21008360 22004424 Hon. Christopher C. Hite Trial Judge:

Oliver Kroll, Christopher Fox-Lent, Manohar Raju and Carmen Aguirre Public Defenders, Matt Gonzalez, Chief Attorney, for Petitioners.

Clyde & Co U.S. LLP, Alison Beanum and Douglas Collodel for Respondent.

District Attorney, Maria Shih and Natalie Fuchs, for Real Parties in Interest.

BANKE J.

In these consolidated writ proceedings,^[1] petitioners Miguel Angel Estrada and Andrew Kuhaiki (Petitioners) each seek a writ of mandate or prohibition requiring respondent Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco to dismiss their cases for violating their speedy trial rights under Penal Code section 1382.^[2] Petitioners contend there was no good cause to continue their cases past the statutory deadline, maintaining the superior court can no longer rely on the "exceptional circumstances" resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. We conclude the superior court did not abuse its discretion in finding good cause to continue their trial dates past the statutory deadlines or by subsequently denying their motions to dismiss, and therefore deny the petitions.

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 Pandemic

Less than a year ago, a different division of this court, in Hernandez-Valenzuela (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 1108 1117 (Hernandez-Valenzuela), considered whether the COVID-19 pandemic constituted "exceptional circumstances" justifying the superior court's finding of good cause to continue criminal cases past the statutory deadlines. The court thoroughly set forth the background of the COVID-19 pandemic and the public health and judicial response in California, which we recount here.

"On March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency in response to the global outbreak of COVID-19, a 'new disease, caused by a novel (or new) coronavirus that has not previously been seen in humans.' "On March 16, 2020, the San Francisco Health Officer issued a shelterin-place order requiring residents of the county to remain in their homes except when engaging in essential activities, and to stay at least six feet apart from other persons when leaving their homes. A few days later, in an attempt to limit the spread of the virus, the Governor issued an executive order requiring all Californians to stay at home except for limited activities.

"On March 23, 2020, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, in her capacity as Chairperson of the Judicial Council, issued an emergency statewide order suspending all jury trials and continuing them for a period of 60 days. The Chief Justice also extended by 60 days the time period provided for in section 1382 for holding a criminal trial. In so ordering, the Chief Justice explained: 'The [Center for Disease Control], the California Department of Public Health, and local county health departments have recommended increasingly stringent social distancing measures of at least six feet between people, and encouraged vulnerable individuals to avoid public spaces. [¶] Courts cannot comply with these health restrictions and continue to operate as they have in the past. Court proceedings require gatherings of court staff, litigants, attorneys, witnesses, and juries, well in excess of the numbers allowed for gathering under current executive and health orders. Many court facilities in California are ill-equipped to effectively allow the social distancing and other public health requirements required to protect people involved in court proceedings and prevent the further spread of COVID-19. Even if court facilities could allow for sufficient social distancing, the closure of schools means that many court employees, litigants, witnesses, and potential jurors cannot leave their homes to attend court proceedings because they must stay home to supervise their children. These restrictions have also made it nearly impossible for courts to assemble juries.' "On March 30, 2020, the Chief Justice issued a second statewide emergency order, authorizing superior courts to issue implementation orders that '[e]xtend the time period provided in section 1382 of the Penal Code for the holding of a criminal trial by no more than 60 days from the last date on which the statutory deadline otherwise would have expired.'

"On April 29, 2020, the Chief Justice issued a third statewide emergency order, stating: 'The 60-day continuance of criminal jury trials and the 60-day extension of time in which to conduct a criminal trial under Penal Code section 1382, both of which I first authorized in my order of March 23, 2020, are to be extended an additional 30 days. The total extension of 90 days shall be calculated from the last date on which the trial initially could have been conducted under Penal Code section 1382.' The Chief Justice explained the extension applied to those matters for which the last date on which trial could be conducted under section 1382 occurred or would occur between March 16, 2020, and June 15, 2020.

"On June 1, 2020, the San Francisco health officer updated the shelterin-place order to allow outside gatherings but still required that essential government functions comply with social distancing requirements to the greatest extent possible.

"On December 3, 2020, the state public health officer issued a new regional stay-at-home order restoring many of the earlier restrictions in an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19 and avoid overwhelming the state's hospitals in response to an unprecedented surge in the level of community spread of COVID-19. The next day, in response to the surge in COVID-19 cases, the San Francisco health officer issued another stay-at-home order requiring residents of the county to once again remain in their homes except when engaging in essential activities. The order was extended on December 30, 2020. The state's regional stay-at-home order was lifted on January 25, 2021, and the San Francisco health officer allowed for certain businesses and other activities to reopen starting on January 28, 2021.

"On June 15, 2021, the San Francisco health officer's 'Safer Return Together' order came into effect. The order rescinded the previous stay-at-home order and lifted indoor capacity limits and social distancing requirements." (Hernandez-Valenzuela, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at pp. 11141116, fns. omitted.)

The San Francisco Superior Court reopened all courtrooms on June 18, 2021.

However, numerous emergency rules and orders regarding the court remained in effect. The Chief Justice's orders regarding extension of time to hold preliminary examinations, waiver of certain requirements to adopt local rules related to the pandemic, and suspension of any California Rule of Court to the extent it prevented a court from using technology to conduct remote proceedings were not rescinded until April 30, 2022. The last of these, including emergency rule 3 regarding remote technology in criminal proceedings and emergency rule 5 regarding criminal appearance waivers were not rescinded until June 30, 2022.

San Francisco Department of Public Health requirements for employers and employees regarding COVID-19 remained in effect. (https://sf.gov/step-by-step/what-do-if-someone-work-has-covid-19 [as of February 22, 2023], https://sf.gov/youve-had-close-contact-or-positive-test [as of Feb. 28, 2023].) Likewise, CalOSHA regulations regarding COVID-19 infections and outbreaks in the workplace continued in effect during the relevant time period. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 3205.1.) And at the federal level, the Secretary of Health and Human Services Declaration of Public Health Emergency with respect to Covid-19 remained in effect.^[3]

Trial Court Proceedings Against Petitioner Estrada

In May 2022, the San Francisco District Attorney charged defendant Estrada by information with attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)); assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)); battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)); mayhem (§ 203); and possession of a switchblade knife in a motor vehicle (§ 21510, subd. (a)), along with various enhancing allegations.

Estrada was arraigned on May 27, 2022, on those charges, entered not guilty pleas, and requested a jury trial on a no-time-waiver basis.

On July 26, 2022, the statutory last day for trial under section 1382, both sides announced they were ready for trial. The court asked the clerk if a courtroom was available, to which the clerk replied: "No, Your Honor. Please find good cause to continue the trial to September 28th." The court granted the continuance, and issued a 16-page written order in which it made extensive findings about the pandemic and the court's response, concluding "due to shelter-in-place orders, social distancing requirements insufficient courtroom staff and security, and the unavailability of adequate alternative locations to conduct defendant's trial, there is good cause to continue defendant's jury trial past the statutory last day. These circumstances were not caused by chronic court congestion nor the neglect or failure of the Court or the People to adequately provide court services, but solely based on a global pandemic constituting exceptional and extraordinary circumstances warranting a good cause finding. Based on the totality of the circumstances, ...