Garcia v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.

• Decision Date: 07 April 2020
• Docket Number: B302119
• Citation: 261 Cal.Rptr.3d 161,47 Cal.App.5th 631
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Naason Joaquin GARCIA, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; The People, Real Party in Interest.

47 Cal.App.5th 631

261 Cal.Rptr.3d 161

Naason Joaquin GARCIA, Petitioner,

v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent;The People, Real Party in Interest.

B302119

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California.

Filed April 7, 2020

Werksman Jackson & Quinn, Alan Jackson, Kelly C. Quinn, and Caleb Mason, Los Angeles, for Petitioner Naason Joaquin Garcia.

No appearance for Respondent.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Laurence K. Sullivan and Bridget Billeter, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest.

ZELON, J.

Petitioner Naason Joaquin Garcia, an in-custody defendant on a no-bail hold, was arraigned on a multi-count felony complaint in June 2019. At that time, he waived his right to a speedy preliminary hearing. In July 2019, Garcia was arraigned on an amended complaint that added three additional counts; however, he did not waive the time limits for a preliminary hearing at that arraignment. Following several continuances of his preliminary hearing, Garcia moved for the dismissal of the amended complaint and his release from custody. The superior court denied the motion. In this petition for writ of mandate, Garcia argues his motion to dismiss should have been granted because the failure to hold a timely preliminary hearing violated the statutory time requirements of Penal Code section 859b and his constitutional right to a speedy trial. We conclude that, where an in-custody defendant is arraigned on an amended complaint, section 859b requires that the preliminary hearing be held within 10 court days of that arraignment unless there is a personal time waiver by the defendant or good cause for a continuance. Because the preliminary hearing for Garcia was not held within the 10-day period prescribed by section 859b and Garcia did not personally waive his right to a preliminary hearing within that time period, section 859b mandates dismissal of the amended complaint against him. We therefore grant the petition.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. Defendants Are Arraigned on the Original Complaint And Enter 10-Day and 60-Day Time Waivers

On June 4, 2019, the California Attorney General’s Office filed a felony complaint against Garcia, Alondra Ocampo, and Susana Medina Oaxaca (collectively, defendants).¹ Garcia was charged with one count of lewd act upon a child ( Pen. Code,² § 288, subd. (c)(1) ), two counts of conspiracy to commit human trafficking (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)), three counts of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)), one count of statutory rape (§ 261.5, subd. (c)), four counts of forcible oral copulation (§ 287, subd. (c)(2)), two counts of oral copulation (§ 287, subd. (b)(1)), and one count of extortion (§ 518).

On June 21, 2019, Garcia, Ocampo, and Oaxaca were each arraigned on the complaint and entered a plea of not guilty. At that time, each of the defendants also waived their right to a preliminary hearing within 10 court days and 60 calendar days of the arraignment. The court calendared August 2, 2019 as the date for setting the preliminary hearing. Bail was set at $50 million for Garcia, $25 million for Ocampo, and $125,000 for Oaxaca.

II. Defendants Are Arraigned on the Amended Complaint Without Entering New Time Waivers

On July 15, 2019, the Attorney General’s Office filed an amended complaint that added three counts against Garcia for possession of child pornography (§ 311.11, subd. (a)). On July 16, 2019, Garcia, Ocampo, and Oaxaca were each arraigned on the amended complaint and entered not guilty pleas. The court ordered that Garcia be held without bail, and set bail at $25 million for Ocampo.³ During a discussion about outstanding discovery issues, the court noted that the next scheduled hearing was set for August 2, 2019. Garcia’s counsel advised the court that they were "comfortable waiting until August 2nd" for Garcia’s pending discovery motion to be heard. Without objection, the court ordered all three defendants back on August 2, stating that date would be "zero of 30." The court did not ask the defendants to waive time, and none of them did so.

III. Defendants Enter Limited Time Waivers for the Preliminary Hearing to be Held No Later Than September 23, 2019

On August 2, 2019, all parties appeared in court before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Francis Bennett II. Given the numerous pending motions filed by the parties, the court stated that it was appropriate to find "a home for this case for all purposes." One pending motion referenced by the court was Oaxaca’s motion to set the preliminary hearing "within the current time period over co-defendant’s objection." During a discussion about scheduling, Oaxaca’s counsel informed the court that Oaxaca was willing to "table that motion" and to "waive time" if the preliminary hearing was set for August 23.⁴ Garcia’s counsel confirmed that "[a]ll agree August 23rd works for all parties." The court then inquired: "So just so I understand, there’s going to be an agreement for a time waiver from all parties with regard to this matter; is that correct?" All defense counsel answered in the affirmative.

After stating that August 23, 2019 would be the "zero of 30 date," the court had the following exchange with Garcia:

The Court: Do you understand that you have a statutory right to a speedy preliminary hearing, that is within 10 court days and 60 calendar days of your arraignment. Do you understand that?

Defendant Garcia: Yes, sir.

The Court: And, presently, it’s my understanding that today is set for day zero of 30, which means that you would be going to preliminary hearing within 30 days of today. Do you agree to waive and give up those rights so that your matter can be continued to the date of August 23rd, 2019, with the understanding that your preliminary hearing would be held on that date or within 30 calendar days of that date? Do you agree to that?

Defendant Garcia: Yes, sir.

The court took the same 30-day time waivers from Ocampo and Oaxaca.

IV. The Preliminary Hearing Is Continued to a Date After September 23, 2019 Due to the Parties’ Discovery Dispute

On August 23, 2019, all parties appeared in court before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Teresa Sullivan. During a discussion about the pending discovery motions, the court asked about the status of any outstanding discovery. In response to the People’s representation that discovery was being provided to the defense "on a rolling basis" because the investigation was ongoing, the court warned that "the defendants have the right to have their hearing with the evidence that the People have ... and if the People filed the case without the evidence that they needed, that’s not the defendants’ burden to bear." The court also inquired if an agreement had been reached on a date for the preliminary hearing. The People replied that defense counsel could not agree on a date. Without objection, the court set the preliminary hearing for September 19, 2019, and stated that date would be "26 of 30."⁵

On September 13, 2019, the court held a hearing to address outstanding discovery issues. Defense counsel complained that the People were failing to comply with their discovery obligations by denying the defense proper access to the electronic devices that were seized from the defendants pursuant to search warrants and were currently being stored in Fresno, California. The court ordered the People to provide the defense with full access to all evidence in their possession on or before September 16, 2019.

On September 18, 2019, the parties returned to court over a dispute about the People’s compliance with the discovery order. Defense counsel asserted that, of the 61 electronic devices seized from the defendants, the People were continuing to deny access to 18 devices. The court reiterated its prior order to the People "to provide immediately to the defense all electronic evidence in your possession." The court also calendared "an order to show cause [regarding] contempt before this court tomorrow should there not be compliance once again."

On September 19, 2019, the date set for the preliminary hearing, the court found the People in contempt for their failure to comply with its discovery order. The court issued monetary sanctions against the two prosecuting attorneys. The court also ordered the People to bring all physical evidence in its possession to the courtroom the following day. The preliminary hearing was trailed to September 20, 2019.

On September 20, 2019, the court found that the People had complied with its order to bring all of the physical evidence seized from the defendants to the courtroom that day. Based on such compliance, the court granted the People’s motion for reconsideration and withdrew the contempt finding and sanctions order. The court also ordered that the preliminary hearing be trailed to Monday, September 23, 2019, stating that was the "ten–of-ten date."⁶ Garcia’s counsel argued that the defense still did not have access to the substantive discovery because it was going to take a considerable amount of time to review all of the electronic data provided by the People that morning. In response, the court stated: "I understand that you are characterizing access a little differently, ... and that has an appropriate place in an appropriate time. Right now, the People have complied with my order. The evidence is in front of me. You guys have to figure this out."

On September 23, 2019, all parties appeared for the preliminary hearing before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge George Lomeli. At the outset, Garcia’s counsel stated that Garcia was "not in a position to make a readiness announcement, vis-a-vis the preliminary hearing" due to "some ongoing outstanding very significant discovery issues." Garcia’s counsel then argued that the People were still not complying with their discovery obligations despite Judge Sullivan’s prior orders. While the People...