Barsamyan v. App. Div. 11/1/06 CA2/7

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2007 » Barsamyan v. App. Div. 11/1/06 CA2/7

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B188695

Case Date: 02/21/2007

Preview:Filed 11/1/06

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN

VARDUI ROSE BARSAMYAN, Petitioner, v. APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

No. B188695 (Super. Ct. No. BS099858)

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS, petition for writ of mandate. Marvin Lager, Fumiko Wasserman, Debre Weintraub and Donna Groman, Judges. Petition denied. Michael P. Judge, Public Defender, Karen Nash and John Hamilton Scott, Deputy Public Defenders, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Debbie Lew, Assistant Deputy Attorney, Sunnie Lee Daniels and Katherine H. MacKenzie, Deputy City Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner seeks an order requiring the appellate division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court to issue its order instructing the trial court to dismiss a pending misdemeanor prosecution against her pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1382, subdivision (a)(3)(B). More particularly, we are called upon to determine whether the 10-day "grace period" set forth in section 1382 was exceeded in violation of petitioner's statutory right to a speedy trial, thereby requiring the pending misdemeanor prosecution to be dismissed. For the reasons hereafter stated, the petition is denied.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SYNOPSIS

In a misdemeanor complaint filed June 1, 2005, petitioner Vardui Rose Barsamyan ("Barsamyan") was charged with a single count of grand theft in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (a). Respondent is the appellate division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court and has not appeared in this writ proceeding. Los Angeles City Attorney Rockard J. Delgadillo represents Real Party in Interest -- the People of the State of California. On June 3, 2005, Barsamyan was arraigned in the airport courthouse Division 141 before the Honorable Donna Groman, orally advised of her rights including the right to be tried within 30 or 45 days, and assigned counsel through the public defender's office. Barsamyan entered a plea of not guilty, requested a jury trial and was released on bail pending trial, never having been placed in custody. The matter was then continued for trial on July 14, 2005. The 45th day after her arraignment fell on July 18, 2005. However, Barsamyan consented to being tried beyond that date.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless context requires otherwise. 2

1

On September 7, 2005, counsel for Barsamyan announced ready for trial, entitling Barsamyan to be brought to trial on the 10th day thereafter which fell on a Saturday, thereby extending the trial date to the following Monday, September 19, 2005, unless good cause was shown for further delay. The case was continued by the court to September 15, 2005, the court noting that September 15th was the 8th day of the 10 day grace period. On September 15, 2005, Barsamyan appeared with counsel Deputy Public Defender Karen Nash, who announced that Barsamyan remained ready for trial. Nash represented to the court that she was also announcing ready for trial in a case involving one Gena Veta George, Los Angeles County Superior Court case No. 5WL00886. Deputy Public Defender Nash further represented to the court that the People and her client Gena Veta George were engaged in ongoing negotiations on the George matter, which prompted the court to state it would "send it out just in case." Barsamyan's counsel later inquired of the court if the Barsamyan matter might be delayed to the next day, within the statutory grace period, representing that the George case might very well be resolved on September 15, 2005. This request prompted the following colloquy among counsel and the court in the George matter (the companion case to Barsamyan, both trailing within the 10-day grace period): "MS. NASH: Your Honor, on Barsamyan I would ask to trail that to tomorrow. I still haven't heard from the deputy who watched the video so that trial might go away. "THE COURT: I have been instructed by Department E that if you can't announce ready on both

Download Barsamyan v. App. Div. 11/1/06 CA2/7.pdf