BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2056
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2010
Counsel: Milena Nelson
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 2056 (Miller) - As Amended: April 28, 2010
SUMMARY : Specifies that good cause to grant a continuance in a
criminal proceeding includes cases involving assault with intent
to commit a sexual offense, as specified, where the prosecuting
attorney has another trial, hearing or motion to suppress in
process.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States that both the People and a defendant have a right to a
speedy and public trial. (California Constitution, Article I,
Section 15.)
2)Requires that felony trials must be held within 60 days of
arraignment in the Superior Court unless there is a showing of
good cause to extend that time. (Penal Code Section 1049.5.)
3)Provides that in a felony case, when a defendant is not
brought to trial within 60 days of the defendant's arraignment
on an indictment or information, or in the case the cause is
to be tried again following a mistrial, the court shall,
unless good cause to the contrary is shown, order that the
case be dismissed. [Penal Code Section 1382(a)(2).]
4)Specifies that continuances in criminal cases may only be
granted upon a showing of good cause. [Penal Code Section
1050(e).]
5)States that it is the duty of the courts, judicial officers,
and all counsel to expedite criminal proceedings to the
greatest degree possible consistent with the ends of justice.
Therefore, criminal cases take precedence over any civil
matters or proceedings, and death penalty proceeding take
precedence over any civil matters, as well as other criminal
matters. [Penal Code Section 1050(a).]
AB 2056
Page 2
6)Provides that in deciding whether good cause for a continuance
exists, the court will consider the general convenience of
prior commitments of witnesses, including peace officers.
[Penal Code Section 1050(g)(1).]
7)Defines "good cause" as including, but not limited to, cases
where the defendant is charged with murder, stalking, domestic
violence, specified sexual assault charges, child abuse or
neglect, a hate crime, or is being handled under the Career
Criminal Prosecution Program. A continuance granted under
this definition of good cause is limited to 10 days. [Penal
Code Section 1050(g)(2).]
8)Specifies that one continuance may be granted where the
defendant is charged with stalking, hate crimes, or crimes
being handled under the Career Criminal Prosecution Program,
and the prosecuting attorney has another trial, hearing or
motion to suppress. [Penal Code Section 1050(g)(3).]
9)Requires that a motion to request a continuance be filed in
writing and served upon all parties to the proceeding at least
two days before the proceeding sought to be continued, and
must include all affidavits and declarations showing that a
continuance is necessary. Additionally, the party seeking the
continuance must notify the calendar clerk of each court
within two days of learning of the conflict, and indicate
which hearing was set first. [Penal Code Section 1050(b).]
10)Requires the court, at the conclusion of the motion for
continuance, to make a finding as to whether good cause
exists. If good cause is found, the court must state on the
record the fact found to justify a finding of good cause and a
statement of facts must be entered into the record. [Penal
Code Section 1050(f).]
11)Limits the length of the continuance to the period of time
necessary, as shown by the evidence presented at the hearing
on the motion for continuance. [Penal Code Section 1050(i).]
12)Provides that in certain cases involving murder, sexual
assault, and child abuse that reasonable efforts must be made
to avoid setting that trial on the same day that another trial
is set involving the same prosecuting attorney. (Penal Code
Section 1048.1.)
AB 2056
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Penal Code
section 1050(g) allows for the People to obtain a continuance
for cases in which there is a particularly vulnerable victim
if the assigned Deputy District Attorney (DDA) is currently
engaged in trial. 'Sexual Assault' in violation of Penal Code
section 220 is not one of the enumerated offenses entitling
the DDA to a continuance while in trial.
"Section 1050g was enacted because the Legislature recognized
that certain victims were entitled to 'vertical prosecution'
in order to ease the difficulties that victims experience
during the criminal justice process. The Analysis for Senate
Bill 215 (Alpert) states that 'Victims are less likely to be
intimidated by the process and more apt to actively
participate if they deal with the same attorney for each
hearing and proceeding. Prosecutors stand a greater chance of
getting a conviction when vertical prosecution methods are
used, which is important for these victims and their
families.'
"Section 220 is no different. Section 220 involves a victim who
is identical to those who currently qualify for the grant of a
continuance under section 1050(g) (e.g. domestic violence,
minor sexual assault victims, rape victims, murder victims).
In fact, these victims are usually adults, who have managed to
break free from their captors and flee to safety. They often
go through the same emotional and physical trauma that rape
and domestic violence victims experience.
"Not including these victims in this statutory scheme means that
there cases can become shuffled around and not given the
proper care and attention that the law has already stated must
be placed on these types of cases."
2)Right to a Speedy Trial : Both the Federal and State
Constitutions guarantee all criminal defendants the right to a
speedy and public trial. [U.S. Const., 6th Amend; Cal.
Const., art. I, Section 15; Penal Code Section 686(1).] "The
right to a speedy trial is fundamental and is imposed by the
Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment on the states."
[Barker vs. Wingo (1972) 407 U.S. 514.] This guarantee
AB 2056
Page 4
imposes an affirmative duty on the court, the prosecution, and
the defense to expedite criminal proceedings consistent with
the ends of justice. [Penal Code Section 1050(a).]
To implement the constitutional right to a speedy trial, the
Legislature enacted Penal Code Section 1382. A delay without
good cause beyond the specified 60-day time period is a
legislatively determined violation of a defendant's
constitutional right to a speedy trial. That section
"constitutes a legislative endorsement of dismissal as a
proper judicial sanction for violation of the constitutional
guarantee of a speedy trial and as a legislative determination
that a trial delayed more than the prescribed period is prima
facie in violation of a defendant's constitutional right."
[Rhinehart v. Municipal Court (1984) 35 Cal.3d 772, 776.]
The California Supreme Court in Rhinehart commented that the
guarantee of a speedy trial "protects those accused of crime
against possible delay, caused either by willful oppression,
or the neglect of the state or its officers . . . . The
accused may be denied his or her right to a speedy trial
simply by the failure of the state to provide enough
courtrooms or judges to enable the accused to come to trial
within the statutory period. Unreasonable delay in run of the
mill criminal cases cannot be justified by simply asserting
that the public resources provided by the State's criminal
justice system are limited and that each case must await its
turn." (Rhinehart v. Municipal Court, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p.
781)
3)Argument in Support :
a) According to the Office of the District Attorney, County
of Santa Barbara , "The Legislature recognized that certain
victims were entitled to 'vertical prosecution' in order to
ease the difficulties that victims experience during the
criminal justice process. Victims are less likely to be
intimidated by the process and more likely to actively
participate if they deal with the same attorney for each
proceeding. Prosecutors stand a greater chance of getting
a conviction when vertical prosecution methods are used,
which is important for these victims and their families.
Assault with intent to rape is no different. These victims
are identical to those who have been considered
'particularly vulnerable' under the law."
AB 2056
Page 5
b) According to the California State Sheriffs' Association ,
"AB 2056 amends the definition of good cause defined in
Penal Code Section 1050 (g) which presently only includes
cases involving murder, stalking, domestic violence, hate
crimes, or the Career Criminal Prosecution Program, to also
include 'assault with intent to commit rape in violation of
Section 220', thereby making sexual assault cases and
victims of assault with intent to commit rape eligible for
a continuance. AB 2056 will ensure that sexual assault
cases involving victims of assault with intent to rape are
both included in the definition of good cause and eligible
for a maximum continuance of ten additional days."
4)Argument in Opposition :
a) According to the Judicial Council of California , "We
believe strongly that it is appropriate and more effective
to have the court determine whether there is good cause for
a continuance on a case-by-case basis based on the
particular facts before it. If the prosecutor makes the
necessary showing that the circumstances in the case
reasonably require additional time, the court can grant the
continuance under current law. Under this proposal, the
mere fact that a prosecutor is trying an assault with the
intent to commit rape case and is unavailable is enough to
give the prosecutor an automatic continuance. Regardless of
the facts or circumstances, the court would not be
authorized to deny the continuance. This bill is
unnecessary and inappropriately interferes with the court's
function.
"The council is extremely concerned that the list of
"automatic" continuances, which were unnecessary to begin
with, will only continue to grow. Automatic continuances
inappropriately put criminal case management within the
control of the prosecution and make the court's calendar
management much more difficult."
b) According to the California Judges Association , "A 'good
cause' request for a continuance usually comes up close to
the 'last day,' i.e., the day that the case has to go to
trail or else it will be dismissed. Typically, a district
attorney (DA) will ask to continue a case for two weeks
because he or she is in another trial. To be thorough, the
AB 2056
Page 6
Master Calendar Judge will check out the facts underlying
the DA's 'good cause' continuance request. This
investigation entails making sure the DA is actually in
another trial, whether it will actually last two weeks,
whether the case fits one of the categories under section
1050(g(2), etc. This is already a burdensome process,
especially when the Master Calendar Judge receives an
onslaught on such requests each week."
5)Related Legislation :
a) SB 59 (Huff) would have added violent gang felony, as
specified, to the list of felony allowing for a
continuance. SB 59 failed passage in the Senate Public
Safety Committee.
b) AB 2057 (Miller) would have created a new exception to
the requirement that a defendant charged with a felony face
a preliminary examination within 60 days to include
instances where good cause for continuance is determined
for a jointly charged co-defendant regardless of any waiver
of time. AB 2057 failed passage in this Committee.
6)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 1273 (Nakanishi), Chapter 133, Statutes of 2003,
clarified that the provision of law governing the
continuance of criminal proceedings is directory only, does
not mandate dismissal of an action by its terms.
b) AB 2653 (Chu) , Chapter 788, Statutes of 2002, provided
that if a prosecutor of a hate crime case is unable to go
to trial because he or she has been assigned to another
proceeding in another courtroom, the court shall find good
cause to continue the hate crime prosecution for up to 10
days.
c) SB 69 (Murray), Chapter 580, Statutes of 1999, allowed
the court to continue a trial or hearing date for up to 10
court days where a prosecutor assigned to a stalking case
has another trial or hearing in progress.
d) AB 501 (Nakano), Chapter 382, Statues of 1999, allowed
the court to continue a trial or hearing date for up to 10
court days where a prosecutor assigned to the career
AB 2056
Page 7
criminal prosecution program has another trial or hearing
in progress.
e) AB 1754 (Havice), Chapter 61, Statutes of 1998, allowed
the court to continue a trial or hearing date for up to 10
court days where a prosecutor assigned to a murder case has
another trial or hearing in progress.
f) SB 215 (Alpert), Chapter 69, Statutes of 1997, allowed
the court to continue a trial or hearing date for up to 10
court days where a prosecutor assigned to a domestic
violence case has another trial or hearing in progress.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
California District Attorneys Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
District Attorney, Alameda County
District Attorney, Fresno County
District Attorney, Kings County
District Attorney, Los Angeles County
District Attorney, Merced County
District Attorney, Monterey County
District Attorney, Nevada County
District Attorney, Orange County
District Attorney, Riverside County
District Attorney, Sacramento County
District Attorney, Santa Barbara County
District Attorney, Sonoma County
District Attorney, Stanislaus County
District Attorney, Tulare County
District Attorney, Yolo County
Opposition
California Judges Association
Judicial Council of California
Analysis Prepared by : Milena Nelson / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744