People v. Kloster

• Decision Date: 21 November 2022
• Docket Number: A164557
• Parties: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEPHEN KLOSTER, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
STEPHEN KLOSTER, Defendant and Appellant.

A164557

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division

November 21, 2022

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. 232289

POLLAK, P. J.

Defendant Stephen Kloster appeals a judgment convicting him of misdemeanor battery. Defendant contends his conviction must be reversed because he was denied his federal Sixth Amendment and California constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial. We find no prejudicial error and affirm the judgment.

Background

On December 6, 2019, defendant was charged by information with, among other things, one count each of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code,^[1] § 245, subd. (a)(4)), elder abuse likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 368, subd. (b)(1)) and false imprisonment of an elder (§ 368, subd. (f)).^[2]

1

At his arraignment on December 16, defendant declined to waive his speedy trial rights. The trial court determined that under section 1382, the trial was required to commence by February 14, 2020.^[3] On February 10, 2020, the trial court found good cause to continue the trial to February 21 on the prosecutor's motion, based on the unavailability of a witness.^[4] Four days later, defendant entered a general waiver of his speedy trial rights.

On August 4, defendant withdrew his general time waiver, and the court set the latest trial date of October 5, 2020. Defendant, who had been in custody since his arrest in November 2019, was released on his own recognizance at this time.

On September 9, the trial court granted defendant's request for mental health diversion. Trial was continued during the pendency of defendant's diversion until it terminated unsuccessfully on February 3, 2021.

On February 5, defendant was remanded into custody and again declined to enter a general time waiver. The court identified the last date for trial under section 1382 as April 6, 2021.

2

On April 6, the court found good cause to continue the trial "due to exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, under Federal, State and Local emergency proclamations and in consideration of public health due to the Covid-19 pandemic." Trial was set for June 18, 2021. Continuing to rely on the Covid-19 pandemic as good cause, the trial was continued twice more over defendant's objection, first to August 20, 2021, and then to December 15, 2021.

After the second continuance, defendant again filed a motion to dismiss based on speedy trial grounds. Defendant argued that the pandemic no longer constituted good cause for the continuance because the San Francisco Superior Court was no longer under pandemic-related restrictions and because the court was failing to move through its backlog of cases as expeditiously as other local courts. The trial court denied the motion. The court explained, "I appreciate that we've had some trial courtrooms that have not been utilized, but I think if you go through the documents that I have taken judicial notice of supplied by the Public Defender's Office that it should be noted that the sequence of those cases is in order of last days. And we are going through in order of last days to have an orderly way of getting through the backlog of no time waiver cases. [¶] And it should be noted that since we reopened our trial courtrooms mid-June with the lifting of the social distancing, we have sent out 97 cases, we've advanced them to go out to trial, and 68 of those were settled, dismissed or continued at trial call. We did send out another 18, and 13 of those were settled or dismissed or continued after spending time in the courtroom, some for a considerable period of time. And that meant that those trial courtrooms opened up, but because we're advancing them in an orderly way and . . . we are advancing them with two weeks' notice so everyone can be ready. [¶] There has been some delay in

3

getting them refilled because of the inordinate amount of cases that have been settled, dismissed or continued. As a result of that, beginning in September we started advancing even more cases on a two-week basis so that we could get trial courtrooms filled up. [¶] So I understand the frustration, but there is a reason why trial courtrooms are not being filled." The court also noted that part of the delay stemmed from the fact that defendant asserted his speedy trial rights in February 2021, when the court was still in the "throes of the pandemic."

Trial commenced December 28, 2021.^[5] On December 30, 2021, the court granted defendant's motion for acquittal on the false imprisonment charge. On January 5, 2022, the jury announced that it could not reach a verdict on the aggravated assault charge, acquitted defendant of elder abuse, and convicted him of the lesser included offense of simple battery (§ 242). The trial court granted a mistrial on the aggravated assault charge and granted the prosecutor's subsequent motion to dismiss that charge.

Defendant was sentenced to six months in jail against which the court applied 440 days of custody credits. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal.

Discussion

Both the state and federal Constitutions guarantee criminal defendants the right to a speedy trial "and both guarantees operate in state criminal prosecutions." (People v. Martinez (2000) 22...