JEFFREY R. ROSEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 163589 IEIGH FRAZIER, DEpUTy DISTRICT ATTORNEY, #20947 6 Office of the District Attorney Çoqn]y Government Center, West Wing 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, CA 951 10 Telephone: (a08) 792-2925 Emai I : LF r azier @da. sccgov. org 1 2 J 4 5 6 Attorneys for the People of the State of California 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CLARA COUNTY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8 9 10 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ll Plaintiff; l2 Case No. C1627960 Motion in Opposition to Defendant's Anticipated Motion to Continue -vs- T3 Martin Guadalupe Anaya et al, DATE: TIME: Defendant t4 DEPT: 15 November 20,2017 9:00 a.m. 40 t6 I. t7 STA 18 t9 OF FACTS Martin Guadalupe Anaya and his co-defendants were arraigned on Novemb er 6,2017. Co- 20 2I defendant Jonathan Gonzalez Segura asserted his right to a speedy trial. Trial is set for December 18, 22 2017. The last day is January 5,2018. Defendant Anaya is currently being represented by Renee 23 Hessling of the Independent Defender's Office. Counsel for Defendant Anaya informed the Court that 24 she was going on maternity leave and she anticipated she will be unavailable for approximately four 25 26 months. Based upon Ms. Hessling's representations to the Court, the People anticipate that she will file motion to continue the December trial date to a date when she returns from maternity leave in March. 27 a 28 The People object to such a lengthy continuance based on a lack ofgood cause. 29 1 II. 1 2 J MEMORANDT]M OF'PO I. 4 5 6 7 AND AUTHORITIES Unavailability due to Maternity Leave of Mr. Anayaos Counsel is Not Good Cause. "Continuances shall be granted only upon a showing of good cause. Neither the convenience of the parties nor a stipulation of the parties is in and of itself good cause." (Penal Code $ 1050(e).) "Good cause within the meaning of section 1382 exists, for example, when the delay beyond the statutory 8 9 period is caused by the conduct ofthe defendant or occurs for his or her benefit, or there are unforeseen 10 cìrcumstønces such øs anexpected íllness, unantícípated unavøíløbilíty of counsel, or the absence of a 1l witness despite due diligence to secure his or her attendance" (People v. Hajjaj, (2010) 50 Cal. 4th t2 lIB4, 1199.) (Emphasis added.) An unexpected illness of defense counsel occurs when counsel suffers a 13 t4 15 t6 l7 18 19 sudden illness, which is a onetime occulrence. (Id. atp.1202.) While the appellate courts have recognized that the need for child care can constitute good cause for a continuance, that has been when the need was unanticipated and E. (2005) 132 Cal.App. th 474, a only for a few days. In In re Maurice juvenile case, the court upheld a finding of good cause to continue a juvenile case for a few days mid-trial based on the prosecutor's offer of proof that an officer witness 20 would be unavailable due to the fact the witness was unable to find alternate childcare after his wife just 21 had a baby and the case continued a day longer than the officer expected. Qd. at p. a81 .) 22 In the present case, counsel's matemity leave cannot be categorized as an unexpected illness nor can 23 24 25 26 27 it be classified as an unanticipated unavailability. Thus, unavailability of defense counsel does not amount to good cause to continue the case under the law. il. Counsel's Maternity Leave Does Not Suffice as Good Cause to Compel a Co-Defendant to Continue his Case Past 60 Days. 28 PC S 1382(a), which interprets the state Constitutional right to a speedy trial, provides that absent a 29 showing of good cause, a defendant accused of a felony is entitled to a dismissal of the charges against 2 I 2 him if he is not brought to trial within 60 days of the filing of the information. (People v. Johnson, ( 1 980) 26 Cal. 3d 557 , 561 , 606.) The Legislature has specifically defined "good cause" to include the a J need to maintain joinder ofjointly charged defendants 4 In any case in which two or more defendants are jointly charged in the same complaint, indictment, or information, and the court or magistrate, for good cause shown, continues the anaignment, preliminary hearing, or trial of one or more defendants, the continuance shall, upon motion of the prosecuting attorney, constitute good cause to continue the remaining defendants' cases so as to maintain joinder. The court or magistrate shall not cause jointly charged cases to be severed due to the unavailability or unpreparedness of one or more defendants unless it appears to the court or magistrate that it will be impossible for all defendants to be available and prepared within a reasonable period of time. (Penal Code $ 1050.1) 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 It is imperative to maintain joinder of all defendants in this case to promote the efficiency of the I2 T3 court system and preserve court resources. Here, the maternity leave of Mr. Anaya's counsel does not I4 suffice as good cause for this case to be continued. There are five defendants, all jointly charged. 15 Defendant Anayais attempting to compel his co-defendant who did not waive time, to wait out a four- l6 l7 month leave for their case to be tried. Because counsel's leave does not constitute good cause, the only 18 remedies include appointing new counsel for Mr. Anaya or severing him from the case. However, in the 19 interests ofjustice, the tnost logical remedy as well as the remedy the People advocate would be for the 20 2t 22 Court to appoint new counsel to Defendant Anaya. III. The People Have the Right to a Speedy Trial. 23 The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects both the accused's interest in 24 decent and fair procedures and the public's interest in a speedy adjudicative system. (Børker v. Wingo, 25 407 U.S. 519.) It is "triggered by arrest, indictment, or other official accusation." (Doggett v. Uníted 26 27 28 29 States, (1992) 505 U.S. 647,655.) This Sixth Amendment Constitutional right extends to the People and allows them to have an interest in a speedy adjudicative system unless both the People and defense waive that right or good 3 I cause for a continuance is found. Here, there is no good cause for a continuance. Even 2 stipulate that Ms. Hessling's unavailability is in fact good cause and even if the defendants if all the defendants waive J time, the People will not stipulate to good cause. The People have a right to a case heard in a reasonable 4 5 amount of time. 6 uI. 7 CONCLUSION 8 For the above stated reasons, it is respectfully requested that the defendant's motion be denied. 9 10 11 Dated: November 7,2017 Respectfully submitted, l2 JEFFREY ROSEN DISTRICT ATTORNEY 13 l4 15 t6 ATTORNEY l7 18 T9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 4 I PROOF OF SERVICE 2 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) People v. JONATHAN GONZALEZ SEGURA, ) ) Docket No. C1627960 4 J 6 7 COTINTY OF SANTA CLARA LUCIANO CORDERO ESQUTVEL, MARTIN GUADALUPE ANAYA, LUIS ANTONIO BRACAMONTE, RICHARD DEANDA ss. I am employed in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the above-entitled action. My business address is: Office of the Dishict Attorney, 70 West Hedding Street, West Wing, San Jose, CA 95110 8 I On November 7,2017,I served the following documents upon the interested parties action by the method(s) indicated below: 10 il t2 in this Motion in Opposition to Defendant's Anticipated Motion to Continue MAIL: by placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, for with the U.S. Postal Service on the same date it is submitted for mailing, and t I BY FIRST CLASS postage and deposit addressed as follows: l3 t4 t I BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: by causing a true copy thereof to be hand-carried to the recipient at the address indicated: l5 l6 txl BY EMAIL TRANSMISSION: by emailing a true copy thereof to the recipient at the email address indicated: r7 katie@kathrynrosslaw.com ; rmhessling@gmail.com; Lizdefense@gmail.com ; nlambros@lambroslegal.com; and bww@benwilliamslaw.com t8 19 20 2I 22 28 24 25 26. Jeffrey F. Rosen District Attornev County of Santå CIa¡a San Joeõ, CA. 951 ffi s¿¿r l0 nnv rzro@ [ ] BY COUNTY PONY MAIL: by placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing true and correct and that this declaration was executed on November 7,2017, at San Jose, California. $nu Royann Wilson is