Meza

People v. Meza

Good Law
129 Cal. Rptr. 3d 314·198 Cal. App. 4th 468·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1074
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 16, 2011No. B226327California4,655 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Perren, J.

Penal Code section 995a, subdivision (b)(1) 1 gives trial courts discretion to deny a motion to set aside an information under section 995 when the motion is based on “minor errors of omission, ambiguity, or technical defect which can be expeditiously cured or corrected without a rehearing of a substantial portion of the evidence.” In this case, the People invoked section 995a in opposing defendant Juan Meza’s motion to set aside the information charging him with two counts of selling heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). Meza’s motion validly asserted that no evidence had been offered at the preliminary hearing to support the allegation that the three-year statute of limitations was tolled while his prior prosecution for the same charges was pending (§§ 801, 803, subd. (b)). The People moved the court to order further proceedings to correct the error in accordance with section 995a. The court found that although the error could be easily and expeditiously cured, the People’s failure to present evidence that the statute of limitations was tolled was not a “minor error[] of omission” subject to correction under section 995a. Accordingly, the court denied the…

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.