Gomez

*427 Opinion

This matter arises from a petition for writ of mandate challenging the denial by the trial court of petitioner’s motion to dismiss the complaint for violation of his right to a speedy trial. The central issue on appeal is whether good cause existed in failing to bring the petitioner to trial before the speedy trial statutory deadline because his counsel was unable to proceed with the trial due to another trial commitment. Because we find good cause lacking, we grant the petition.

I. Statements and Proceedings Below

On April 13, 1984, a complaint was filed alleging the petitioner violated Health and Safety Code section 11550 subdivision (b)—being under the influence of a controlled substance, phencyclidine (PCP), a misdemeanor.

On that same day, the defendant was arraigned. He had been in custody. He entered a plea of not guilty, a public defender was appointed for him, and he was released on his own recognizance.

After having been continued several times, the matter was set for trial on May 14, 1984. This date was the 30th day from the petitioner’s arraignment. Thus, this was the last day on which the trial court commence without violating the petitioner’s right…

Section 1382, Penal Code provides for mandatory dismissal of a misdemeanor action if it is continued without the express or implied consent of defendant beyond the 30-day period following arraignment if he is in custody at the time of arraignment unless good cause to the contrary is shown. (Subd. 3.) What constitutes “good cause” depends on the circumstances of each case and is a determination within the discretion of the trial court. Absent a showing of abuse of that discretion, the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed. (Rhinehart v. Municipal Court (1984) 35 Cal.3d 772, 781 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 916 , 677 P.2d 1206 ]; Owens v. Superior Court (1980) *436 28 Cal.3d 238, 250 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 466 , 617 P.2d 1098 ]; People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 570 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 , 606 P.2d 738 , 16 A.L.R.4th 1255 ].) Our Supreme Court has held in the circumstances of each case that the congested calendar of appointed counsel of a defendant in custody awaiting trial on a felony charge cannot serve as “good cause” under section 1382, Penal Code (People v. Johnson, 26 Cal.3d 557, 569 ), nor can the congested state of the trial court’s calendar in the absence of exceptional…

Robert M. Myers, City Attorney, Stephen S. Stark, Assistant City Attorney, Rhonda Saunders and James H. O'Donnell, Deputy City Attorneys, for Real Parties in Interest.

OPINION

JOHNSON, J.

This matter arises from a petition for writ of mandate challenging the denial by the trial court of petitioner's motion to dismiss the complaint for violation of his right to a speedy trial. The central issue on appeal is whether good cause existed in failing to bring the petitioner to trial before the speedy trial statutory deadline because his counsel was unable to proceed with the trial due to another trial commitment. Because we find good cause lacking, we grant the petition.

On April 13, 1984, a complaint was filed alleging the petitioner violated Health and Safety Code section 11550 subdivision (b) — being under the influence of a controlled substance, phencyclidine (PCP), a misdemeanor.

On that same day, the defendant was arraigned. He had been in custody. He entered a plea of not guilty, a public defender was appointed for him, and he was released on his own recognizance.

After having been continued several times, the matter was set for trial on May 14, 1984. This date was the 30th…