Perez

Perez v. Superior Court

Caution

111 Cal. App. 3d 994·169 Cal. Rptr. 45·1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 2427

Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 12, 1980Civ. 59625California1,563 words

Opinion

Klein, J.

Statement of the Case

Petitioner Jack Copeland Perez (Perez) seeks a writ of mandate to compel respondent Superior Court of Ventura County (Superior Court) to dismiss pursuant to Penal Code section 1382 the information lodged against him.

Facts

The following facts pertain to Perez’ petition:

Contentions

Perez contends that (1) the amended information does not toll the running of the original 60-day period, and (2) the congested court calendar does not excuse the failure to bring him to trial within 60 days.

Disposition

We find Perez’ contentions to be meritorious for the reasons set forth below and therefore order that a peremptory writ of mandate issue.

Discussion

Perez first argues that the amended information does not toll the running of the original 60-day period provided by section 1382. We agree.

In order for an amendment to an information to toll the running of the 60-day period prescribed by section 1382, the amendment must go to the substance of the charge. (Matthews v. Superior Court (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 589, 593 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 843 ]; Huerta v. Superior Court (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 482, 484-485 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 748 ].) Amendments which “added nothing to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.