Hernandez-Valenzuela v. City of S.F.

• Decision Date: 03 March 2022
• Docket Number: A163992, A163996
• Citation: 291 Cal.Rptr.3d 154,75 Cal.App.5th 1108
• Parties: Osmin HERNANDEZ-VALENZUELA, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; The People, Real Party in Interest. Andres Valdivia Torres, Petitioner, v. The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Respondent; The People, Real Party in Interest.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

75 Cal.App.5th 1108

291 Cal.Rptr.3d 154

Osmin HERNANDEZ-VALENZUELA, Petitioner,

v.The SUPERIOR COURT OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent;

The People, Real Party in Interest.

Andres Valdivia Torres, Petitioner,

v.The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Respondent;

The People, Real Party in Interest.

A163992, A163996

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California.

Filed March 3, 2022

Manohar Raju, Public Defender, Matt Gonzalez, Chief Attorney, Oliver Kroll, Eric Flesichaker and Kathleen Natividad, Deputy Public Defenders, for Petitioners.

No appearance for Respondent.

Chesa Boudin, District Attorney, Allison MacBeth and Natalie Fuchs, Assistant District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.

Petrou, J.

In these consolidated writ proceedings¹ , petitioners Andres Valdivia Torres and Osmin Hernandez-Valenzuela (collectively "petitioners") each seek a writ of mandate or prohibition requiring respondent Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco to dismiss his case for violating his speedy trial rights under Penal Code section 1382.² Petitioners contend there was no good cause to continue their cases past the statutory deadline. We disagree and therefore deny each of their petitions.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The COVID-19 Pandemic

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."³

On March 16, 2020, the San Francisco Health Officer issued a shelter-in-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.⁴ 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.⁵

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."⁶

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."⁷

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, 2020.⁸

On June 1, 2020, the San Francisco health officer updated the shelter-in-place order to allow outside gatherings but still required that essential government functions comply with social distancing requirements to the greatest extent possible.⁹

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-19.¹⁰ 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.¹¹ The order was extended on December 30, 2020.¹² The state's regional stay-at-home order was lifted on January 25, 2021,¹³ and the San Francisco health officer allowed for certain businesses and other activities to reopen starting on January 28, 2021.¹⁴

On June 15, 2021, the San Francisco health officer's "Safer Return Together" order came into effect.¹⁵ The order rescinded the previous stay-at-home order and lifted indoor capacity limits and social distancing requirements.

B. Trial Court Proceedings Against Valdivia Torres

On September 17, 2020, an information in Case No. 20008445 charged Valdivia Torres with making criminal threats ( § 422 ); false imprisonment ( § 236 ); and exhibiting a deadly weapon ( § 417, subd. (a)(1) ).

On September 28, 2020, Valdivia Torres was arraigned in Case No. 20008445 on these charges and entered not guilty pleas and a general time waiver. Days later, he was granted a mental health diversion and became subject to monitoring through the behavioral health court. On February 16, 2021, a bench warrant issued for failure to appear at a hearing.

On April 20, 2021, Valdivia Torres was arrested for actions giving rise to a new felony complaint and information. At a hearing on April 23, 2021, in Case No. 20008445, Valdivia Torres withdrew his general time waiver, and the court fixed June 22, 2021 as his statutory last day for trial in that case under section 1382.

On June 3, 2021, an information in Case No. 21003966 charged Valdivia Torres with child endangerment ( § 273a(a) ); two counts of assault with a deadly weapon–not a firearm ( § 245(a)(1) ); battery ( § 242 ); and disobeying domestic relations court order resulting in physical injury ( § 273.6(b).) On June 16, 2021, he was arraigned on these charges and entered not guilty pleas. He did not waive time, and respondent court fixed August 16, 2021 as his statutory last day for trial under section 1382.

On June 22, 2021, the court called Case No. 20008445 for trial. The court found "extraordinary and exceptional circumstances" existed which constituted good cause to continue his trial past the last day. The court described the onset of the "life threatening" COVID-19 pandemic which at that point had caused over 33 million Americans to be infected and over 600,000 deaths. It took judicial notice of all orders issued by the Governor, mayor of San Francisco, the Departments of Public Health for the state and City and County of San Francisco, and the Chief Justice and Judicial Council related to the COVID-19 emergency, as well as all of respondent court's orders regarding facilities and operating procedures under the COVID-19 emergency. Recounting the Governor's March 4, 2020 state of emergency and San Francisco's subsequent emergency shelter in place orders, the court explained that it had been "required to reduce the number of operational courtrooms" from 20 to 5 ½ to cover "necessary calendar matters." This was due to "huge staff reductions," "related childcare issues," and the high medical risk posed by COVID-19 for staff or their households. After several weeks, the court was able to resume most of its functions with "serious limitation[s]." On December 4, 2020, a new shelter-in-place order was issued that caused the court to again suspend jury trials until January 8, 2021.

The court further explained that between April 2020 and June 2021, "social distancing requirements vastly restricted the amount of seating within each courtroom, the jury assembly room, the public hallways outside the courtroom, and the lobby area at the ... Hall of Justice criminal courthouse." Social distancing requirements limited the number of people in an elevator, use of stairwells, and the jury assembly room. Given the social distancing restrictions and relocations of other courts to trial courtrooms, "the criminal court was down from 10 to 4 trial courtrooms each with a satellite courtroom to accommodate ... jury selection[s] and to provide a public gallery to ensure a public trial." The court also noted that use of the Civic Center Courthouse had not been a viable option for felony or violent misdemeanor cases because of the inability to provide adequate security in that building. Therefore, the only criminal trials that could proceed at that location were nonviolent misdemeanor trials.

After citing several authorities supporting its good cause finding, the court discussed the "large backlog of no[-]time[-]waiver cases," noting there were 357 no-time-waiver felony cases pending with 168 defendants in custody. With the lifting of social distancing...