Sutton

People v. Sutton

Good Law
165 Cal. App. 4th 646·81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 195
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 30, 2008B195337California4,696 words

Opinion

Opinion

The joint trial of defendants and appellants Michael Jerome Sutton and Willie J. Jackson began six days after the 60-day statutory deadline in Penal Code section 1382. [1] The trial court continued the trial as to both defendants because Jackson's counsel was engaged in trial on another matter. On appeal, defendants contend that good cause did not exist to continue the trial beyond the statutory deadline. In the published portion of this opinion, we hold that an appointed counsel's present engagement in another matter is good cause to continue the joint trial of jointly charged defendants. In the nonpublished portion of this opinion, we reject defendants' contention that the trial court erred in excluding evidence, although we agree with Sutton's other contention that there are errors in his sentence. We therefore reverse and remand this matter as to Sutton with respect to the sentencing errors only. We otherwise affirm the judgment as to both defendants.

On May 31, 2006, Officer Anthony Jackson, a member of the narcotics division buy team, was working undercover at 7th and Ceres in Los Angeles. Defendant Jackson was counting money on Ceres. The officer looked at…

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.