Arnold

Arnold v. Williams

Good Law
1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 1644·222 Cal. App. 2d 193·35 Cal. Rptr. 35
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 8, 1963Civ. 7356California909 words

Opinion

Opinion

Griffin, J.

Petitioiaer-appellant Danny Arnold and one Joseph M. Valdez were charged jointly in two counts in the municipal court with violation of Penal Code, section 470 (forgery). The preliminary hearing was set for January 3, 1963. At this hearing, the People were unable to proceed. The transcript of the proceedings in the municipal court shows the presence of defendant Arnold, his attorney and the deputy district attorney. The preliminary examination was called for hearing and all parties said they were ready. The deputy district attorney then announced that an officer of a bank was on call as a witness and should be there momentarily; that he had just telephoned him. Some conversation took place between counsel and the court off the record. The deputy district attorney then announced that he would have to continue the cause because he did not have the “correct” witness there. A conversation was had at the bench with the court and off the record. The deputy district attorney then stated:

Apparently a new complaint was filed on the same charge and defendant was rearrested thereon as he was leaving the jail. He then filed this petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition in the Superior…

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.