BENHOOR

People v. BENHOOR

Good Law
177 Cal. App. 4th 1308·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1582·99 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 24, 2009B212593California5,367 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perluss, J.

After he was cited for driving at an unsafe speed, Justin Panah Benhoor unsuccessfully contested the charged infraction through a trial by written declaration. Dissatisfied with the adverse decision, he exercised his right to a trial de novo. The clerk set the new trial for a date 57 calendar days after receipt of Benhoor’s new trial request. Arguing that rule 4.210 of the California Rules of Court, which governs trials by declaration, requires the new trial be held within 45 calendar days of the clerk’s receipt of the new trial request, Benhoor moved to dismiss the citation. The trial court denied the motion and convicted Benhoor of the infraction. Although we agree with Benhoor’s interpretation of rule 4.210(b)(7), we disagree with his contention the remedy for this violation of the rule is dismissal pursuant to Penal Code section 1382 (section 1382), which provides a statutory right to a speedy trial and requires dismissal of an action that is not timely tried absent a showing of good cause. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Benhoor was found guilty on December 11, 2007 of driving at an unsafe speed (Veh. Code, § 22350), following…

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.