This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Modification: People v. Superior Court (Tapia)

Ruling by

Carol Codrington

Lower Court

Riverside County Superior Court

Lower Court Judge

John Monterosso

Unavailability of judges and courtrooms, though related to COVID, did not justify extending Penal Code Section 1382 deadline when actual cause was due to chronic backlog predating COVID.





Court

California Courts of Appeal 4DCA/2

Cite as

2023 DJDAR 7919

Published

Aug. 3, 2023

Filing Date

Aug. 2, 2023

Opinion Type

Modification

Disposition Type

Petition Denied

Case Fully Briefed

Jan. 12, 2023


THE PEOPLE,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

Respondent;

JOSE LUIS TAPIA,

Real Party in Interest.

 

No. E080076

(Super. Ct. No. BLF2100023)

California Court of Appeal

Fourth Appellate District

Division Two

Filed August 2, 2023

 

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

AND DENYING PETITION

FOR REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

 

The petition for rehearing is denied. The majority opinion filed in this matter on July 11, 2023, is modified as follows:

The second paragraph, last sentence on page 16, should be modified to read "... and there is no complete date from 2022 yet. (See 2023 Court Statistics Report (available at http://courts.ca.gov/13421.htm as of July 12, 2023) [collecting statistics through fiscal year 2022, which ended on June 30, 2022] and the Trial Court Operational Metrics: Year One Report (available at http://courts.ca.gov/documents/lr-2023-tc-operational-metrics-BA2022-ch43.pdf as of July 12, 2023) [same].)"

After the second paragraph, last sentence on page 16, as modified, add the following footnote, which will require renumbering all subsequent footnotes: "The District Attorney argued for the first time in his traverse that the Superior Court should have produced case disposition statistics not publicly available under Chevron Stations, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 116, 131. The District Attorney waived the argument by failing to make it in his petition without good cause. (Committee to Relocate Marilyn v. City of Palm Springs (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 607, 637, fn. 8.). The District Attorney also forfeited the argument by failing to make it below. (People v. Suarez (2020) 10 Cal.5th 116, 149.)"

The third paragraph, last sentence on page 16 should be modified to read "But, again, the data from 2021 and 2022 is incomplete."

Except for these modifications, the majority opinion remains unchanged. These modifications do not effect a change in the judgment.

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

 

CODRINGTON, J.

 

We concur:

RAMIREZ, P. J.

RAPHAEL, J.

 

#281446

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424