People v. Ferguson
Decision Date | 16 March 1990 |
Docket Number | No. F011909,F011909 |
Citation | 218 Cal.App.3d 1173,267 Cal.Rptr. 528 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ronny Keith FERGUSON, Defendant and Respondent. |
The People appeal the lower court's order of dismissal. We reverse based upon the discussion that follows.
An information was filed on November 17, 1988, charging Ronny Keith Ferguson, respondent herein, with possession of amphetamine (Health and Saf.Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and possession of a nunchaku (Pen.Code, § 12020, subd. (a)). 1 As to the amphetamine charge, it was further alleged that the offense was committed while respondent was armed with a firearm. (§ 12022, subd. (a).) Respondent was arraigned on the following day when he pleaded not guilty and waived statutory time for trial. He was out of custody and so remained throughout the proceedings.
On January 30, 1989, the date originally set for trial, the case was trailed. On February 6, 1989, the court granted respondent's request to replace his attorney. Trial was reset for March 6, 1989, with respondent's acquiescence.. On February 23, his new counsel requested a new date for the hearing of pretrial motions and a later trial date of March 20, 1989. The motion was granted only to the extent of allowing a new motion date.
Evidently there were no available trial courts on March 6, 1989, resulting in the trailing of the case, first to March 7 and eventually to March 9, 1989, when the case was dismissed. The clerk's minutes of the hearing before the assigned trial judge include the following: There is no reference to the code section authorizing the dismissal.
The reporter's transcript indicates the circumstances surrounding the dismissal:
Section 1382 provides in pertinent part:
Section 1385, subdivision (a) provides:
The People contend that the court erred if it dismissed the case pursuant to section 1382 because the statutory time period had not run. Respondent contends that section 1382 has no application to this case whatsoever.
Section 1382 does not authorize the granting of a motion, as here, made within the 10-day period after the scheduled trial date, where the initial 60-day entitlement period has been waived. The arguments of the parties in this regard thus require no further discussion. Nonetheless, cases discussing section 1382 are valuable to our consideration of whether the court abused its discretion as we explain later.
Nor can the motion have been properly made pursuant to section 1385, argue the People, since a defendant is not authorized to make such a motion.
Respondent counters that the motion should be construed as having been raised by the People in their initial comment or by the court in its inviting such motion.
First, the prosecutor's comment that "I expect this court to dismiss" the case needs to be considered in its context. The chief deputy prosecutor was appearing before this trial department after the case was assigned there by the master calendar judge who had earlier refused to trail the case on this particular morning. In counsel's words, he was there "specially to prepare the record" expecting that this case would be dismissed, in spite of the prosecution's objection, like a similar case earlier in the week. Given this context, we cannot say we construe the motion to have been made by the People.
Second, any ambiguity in the record as to whether this was respondent's motion or the court's appears to be resolved by the minute's attribution of respondent as the moving party. However, we assume arguendo the court's solicitation places this matter within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oberholzer v. Commission on Judicial Performance
...of cases to be tried. DDA Sparks reportedly refused to return to Department 8 for trial and cited the case of People v. Ferguson [ (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1173, 267 Cal.Rptr. 528]. Reportedly, the defense then moved to dismiss, and you granted the motion on the grounds that the prosecution wa......
-
People v. Bracey
...533 P.2d 193.) A dismissal not in furtherance of justice is an abuse of discretion requiring reversal. (People v. Ferguson (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1173, 1180-1183, 267 Cal.Rptr. 528.) As previously noted, section 1385 mandates that the lower court, in dismissing under that section, enter a st......
-
People v. Henderson
...to continue the trial of the matter even though it was still within the 60-day statutory speedy trial period. In People v. Ferguson (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1173, 267 Cal.Rptr. 528, the Court of Appeal stated, `Section 1050 governs continuance and is based on the premise that criminal proceedi......
-
People v. Superior Court (Alexander), B085837
... ... (Malengo v. Municipal Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 813, 815-816, 17 Cal.Rptr. 10, 366 P.2d 453; People v. Rubaum (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 930, 934-936, 168 Cal.Rptr. 291; see also People v. Ferguson (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1173, 1178-1179, 267 Cal.Rptr. 528; Bryant v. Superior Court, supra, 186 Cal.App.3d 483, 496-498, 230 Cal.Rptr. 777; People v. Arnold (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 456, 459-460, 164 Cal.Rptr. 367; People v. Hernandez (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 451, 454-455, 158 Cal.Rptr. 742; People v ... ...
-
Search and seizure
...and curb the prosecutorial abuse caused by Ferrer. Ferrer was a felony case, as was the Ferguson case ( People v. Ferguson (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1173) cited by it. Ferguson held that a trial court abused its discretion in denying a prosecutorial request for a trial continuance and dismissin......
-
Table of cases
...Div.2, Docket No. A114140) (Unpublished), §7:20.13 People v. Ferguson (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 1014, §9:91.13 People v. Ferguson (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1173, §§7:84.3.1, 7:84.4 People v. Ferguson (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1070, §§1:34, 7:74 People v. Ferrara (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 201, §9:115 Peopl......