Brown

—Petitioners in these consolidated proceedings are charged with misdemeanor violations of the Vehicle Code. In each case, when the defense announced ready for trial, the People were granted a continuance to a date beyond the statutory time limits set forth in Penal Code section 1382, because they had been unable to subpoena the arresting officer, a material witness. The People revealed that they had not attempted to subpoena the officer until the first date set for trial, and that the officer could not be subpoenaed at that time because he was on vacation. Petitioners correctly contend that the People did not make a showing of “due diligence” sufficient to demonstrate good cause for any of the continuances, and therefore each case must be dismissed pursuant to section 1382.

Facts

The procedural history of each case is the same. Each petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not guilty, at which time the municipal court set his case for trial within the statutory time limits of section 1382. Petitioner Middleton was arraigned while in custody on June 6, 1986. The latest date on which the case could be tried was July 7, 1986, and trial was set for June 25,1986, more than a…