McNeely

McNeely v. Blanas

Good Law
2003 Daily Journal DAR 4149·326 F.3d 1056·2003 WL 1896227·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3247·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 7311
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 18, 2003No. 02-15860California3,681 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Tashima, J.

Dock McNeely (“McNeely” or “Petitioner”), a California pretrial detainee, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. 1 McNeely contends that his constitutional speedy trial rights are being denied because he has been in custody since April 1998 without a preliminary hearing or trial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we reverse.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a defendant in a pending California state felony case. He was arrested on April 13, 1998, and was charged two days later with lewd and lascivious conduct upon a child under the age of 14 and failing to register as a sex offender in violation of Cal. Pen.Code §§ 288, 290. Petitioner had not yet received a preliminary hearing or trial as of the conclusion of briefing in this case.

The case has been repeatedly continued due to a combination of competency hearings, replacements of counsel, a period from February 19, 1999, to August 19, 1999, when McNeely was found to be incompetent and committed to a state hospital, the disqualification of two judges, and numerous other continuances. The precise reasons for many of the continuances are unclear due to the cryptic…

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.