People v. Henderson

Good Law
115 Cal. App. 4th 922·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 175·2004 Daily Journal DAR 2059·9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 655·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1330
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 13, 2004E033737California6,401 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gaut, J.

1. Introduction

The People appeal from a judgment dismissing a criminal complaint against defendant James Henderson, who was charged with first degree burglary and assault with a deadly firearm. The People claim that, on the date scheduled for the preliminary hearing, the magistrate had no authority to dismiss the complaint because the prosecutor failed to show good cause for a continuance as required under Penal Code section 1050. The People specifically argue that, although a trial court has the authority to dismiss an action under certain circumstances, including those specified in sections 1385 and 871, the court lacks the authority to dismiss an action under any statute, even when the prosecutor fails to satisfy the requirements for a continuance under section 1050, so long as the requested date falls within the statutory period required for a preliminary hearing under section 859b.

In adopting the rationale applied in the cases involving the speedy trial statute, we conclude that a dismissal of a complaint for noncompliance with the requirements for a continuance within the time limits set forth in the preliminary hearing statute would not be in the furtherance of…

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.