Bautista

United States v. Bautista

Good Law
201 F. App'x 414
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 8, 2006Nos. 05-30404, 05-30429California1,604 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Defendants-Appellants Efrain Suarez Delgado and Jesus Mendoza-Bautista appeal their convictions and their sentences for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and for distribution of cocaine. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here.

ANALYSIS

United States v. Delgado, No. 05-30429

1. Speedy Trial

Delgado makes two speedy trial *417 claims. 1 First, Delgado claims that his rights under the Speedy Trial Act were violated because his trial did not begin within 70 days of his arraignment on the Superseding Indictment. The district court granted an “ends of justice” continuance, finding that, because defendant Mendoza-Bautista had just been assigned new counsel, “the best interest of the defendants and public in a speedy trial is outweighed by the ends of justice served by this continuance because, due to the circumstances described on the record, defense counsel needs the addition[al] time in order to prepare effectively for trial.” Because the ends of justice require effective representation of all defendants, and “delays caused by one defendant are excluded from the speedy trial clock as to all codefendants,” United States…

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.