P. v. Engram 8/31/09 CA4/2

State: California

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

Docket No: E047015

Case Date: 12/03/2009

Preview:Filed 8/31/09 P. v. Engram CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TERRION MARCUS ENGRAM, Defendant and Respondent. E047015 (Super.Ct.No. RIF125429) OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Helios (Joe) Hernandez, Judge. Affirmed. Rod Pacheco, District Attorney, Alan D. Tate, Senior District Attorney, and Kelli Catlett, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Susan S. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. The People appeal from judgment entered following the trial court dismissing the

1

case in the interests of justice pursuant to Penal Code section 1385.1 On the last day the case could be tried, the trial court determined there were no courtrooms available for trial. The following day the court granted defendant Terrion Engrams motion to dismiss under section 1382. The People argue the trial court erred in failing to consider the availability of civil courtrooms, including special civil proceeding courtrooms, for trial of the instant case, as required under section 1050, subdivision (a).2 The People further contend that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to find there was good cause to continue defendants case beyond the section 1382 limitation period. We conclude, consistent with this courts recent decision in People v. Wagner (2009) 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 850, 852 (Wagner), that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit legal error in dismissing the case pursuant to section 1385 due to the unavailability of a courtroom and expiration of the limitation period to try the case. We further conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Peoples request to continue the trial. The judgment is affirmed. 1. Factual and Procedural Background Defendant was charged with attempted premeditated murder (

Download P. v. Engram 8/31/09 CA4/2.pdf