Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendanttrialpublic defenderobjection
defendantappealtrialfelonypublic defender

Related Cases

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389, 68 USLW 4263, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3949, 00 CJ C.A.R. 2064, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 225
View Case »
Sylvester v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1126
View Case »
Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, 493 U.S. 120, 110 S.Ct. 456, 107 L.Ed.2d 438, 58 USLW 4038, 15 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 7378
View Case »
Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574, 33 Fed.R.Serv.2d 704, 2 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 523
View Case »
Huskinson & Brown v. Wolf, 32 Cal.4th 453, 84 P.3d 379, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 693, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1473, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2254
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

People v. Johnson, 26 Cal.3d 557, 606 P.2d 738, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 16 A.L.R.4th 1255

Facts

On July 12, 1977, defendant Johnson was convicted of three counts of robbery. He was not brought to trial within the statutory 60-day period after the filing of the information, as the public defender requested continuances over Johnson's express objections due to conflicts with other cases. Johnson raised his speedy trial claim in the trial court but did not seek pretrial appellate intervention. The trial commenced 144 days after the filing of charges, during which Johnson was incarcerated.

On July 12, 1977, defendant Johnson was convicted of three counts of robbery (Pen.Code, s 211). On this appeal, he contends that his conviction should be reversed on the grounds, among others, that he was denied his right to a speedy trial and that substantial evidence does not support the judgment.

Issue

Whether the public defender could waive the defendant's right to a speedy trial over the defendant's express objection, and whether the delays constituted good cause to avoid dismissal of the charges.

We conclude, first, that when a client expressly objects to waiver of his right to a speedy trial under section 1382, counsel may not waive that right to resolve a calendar conflict when counsel acts not for the benefit of the client before the court but to accommodate counsel's other clients.

Rule

Under California Penal Code section 1382, a defendant is entitled to a dismissal of charges if not brought to trial within 60 days, absent a showing of good cause. Counsel cannot waive a defendant's right to a speedy trial if the waiver is not in the best interest of the client.

Section 1382, which interprets the state constitutional right to a speedy trial (see Cal.Const., art. I, s 15), provides that absent a showing of good cause, a defendant accused of a felony is entitled to a dismissal of the charges against him if he is not brought to trial within 60 days of the filing of the information.

Analysis

The court determined that the public defender's requests for continuances were made over the express objection of the defendant and were not in the defendant's best interest, as they were aimed at accommodating the counsel's other clients. The court concluded that the delays did not constitute good cause to avoid dismissal, as they stemmed from the public defender's conflicting obligations rather than any benefit to the defendant.

Thus when the public defender, burdened by the conflicting rights of clients entitled to a speedy trial, seeks to waive one client's right, that conduct cannot be justified on the basis of counsel's right to control judicial proceedings.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the conviction, stating that while the defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated, he did not demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the delay.

We adhere, however, to the reasoning and holding in Wilson. That decision represents a considered policy judgment that defendants should seek review of speedy trial claims before trial.

Who won?

The People (State of California) prevailed because the court found that the defendant did not prove prejudice from the delay in trial despite the violation of his right to a speedy trial.

The People (State of California) prevailed because the court found that the defendant did not prove prejudice from the delay in trial despite the violation of his right to a speedy trial.

You must be