19 year old citation valid? or SoL expired?

[StevenJ_420Law]

Serna vs Superior court (1985)

Read the entire ruling. Its not very long. It is brilliant jurisprudence.

 

[BOR]

Serna vs Superior court (1985)

Read the entire ruling. Its not very long. It is brilliant jurisprudence.

You need to read the ruling yourself.


If you relate the facts here to that, which they are not, but arguendo we will assume they are, then the conclusion will be the same:


...To the extent that the denial of the motion to dismiss was based on a conclusion that petitioner had not demonstrated a cognizable violation of the right to speedy trial guaranteed by article I, section 15, of the California [40 Cal.3d 251] Constitution, we find no error. We therefore conclude that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for writ of mandate and prohibition on this ground....

The Speedy trial assignment of error was dismissed, other factors were decided upon.

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

i have no idea why you read section II, the ca constitution part and posted a section from that.. and completely ignored section III concerning the 6th amendment, which is what we are discussing. Are you are intentionally overlooking facts to be obtuse or did you accidently not read very far or what?

 

[BOR]

i have no idea why you read section II, the ca constitution part and posted a section from that.. and completely ignored section III concerning the 6th amendment, which is what we are discussing. Are you are intentionally overlooking facts to be obtuse or did you accidently not read very far or what?

Well, if you are right, CA sure has a large prison population for some reason, so it did not catch on that fast.

The Underground element would have that so public, no criminal would ever appear and be free.

Your analysis of the case is wrong, IMO, but we don't have to keep going back and forth. You cited it, I read it, it still does not apply, IMO.

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

How the heck doesnt it apply? It'ss exactly what you asked for. You asked me for a case anywhere. I did that...

This case centers around a 4 1/2 year old misdemeanor with a warrant for FTA to arraignment - and upon arrest, a motion to dismiss based on the 6th amendment. Since this has been held, Serna motions are actually fairly common in CA (although most common is for the DA to motion to dismiss citing Serna, as opposed to a defendant filing it). My analysis isnt wrong, I've seen at least 200 serna motions in my life with rulings so, yes my analysis is correct. Google "Serna Motion" and you can see examples of how to write one.

I've done all I can do to at least make you understand your premise and opinion on the 6th is one sided and incorrect on it's face. Your advice on FTA's in unsound and incorrect - likely even for a PA case..and especially after 18 years of faded memories of events and lost records.. shown you about prejudicing the defendat.. and i've given you state case law and SCOTUS case law and interpretations. Maybe its pride not allowing you to see the obvious. Dunno.

I agree though, we probably have run the course here for this debate..

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Since this has been held, Serna motions are actually fairly common in CA (although most common is for the DA to motion to dismiss citing Serna, as opposed to a defendant filing it).

And is it safe to assume that this is the case because Serna mainly applies when the delay is caused by the prosecution or by the court rather than by the defendant's failure to appear?

From People v. Hsu: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17407466912308915015&q=Norman+Hsu&hl=en&as_sdt=2004

Next, we must identify the reason for the delay. (Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at p. 531.) This is a subject of great dispute between the parties. Hsu claims the delay in his sentencing must be attributed to the government, which he claims failed to make any serious efforts to apprehend him. Hsu asserts: "At least since 2003" when he returned to the United States from Hong Kong he "led a very visible and public life using his own identity. He did not act like a fugitive. He did not evade the authorities, but rather openly associated with highly public politicians."

Respondent admits the government made only cursory efforts to locate Hsu after he returned to the United States in 2003 by periodically checking Hsu's last known address, his wife's home address, and his son's school. Nevertheless, respondent claims that "[Hsu]'s flight, including leaving the United States for Hong Kong for approximately 10 years" was the principal cause for the delay.

406*406 (4) While it is unclear how Hsu could have engaged in such prominent political activity without being detected, we conclude that Hsu's flight to avoid being sentenced must be weighed more heavily than the ensuing failure of the government to apprehend him. Hsu's argument that the delay in sentencing was the government's fault because it declined to expend larger amounts of time and investigative resources to locate him is flawed. As recognized by the court in Sandoval, supra, 990 F.2d at page 485, "There is no requirement that law enforcement officials `make heroic efforts to apprehend a defendant who is purposefully avoiding apprehension.' ..." (Quoting Rayborn, supra, 858 F.2d at p. 90.) According to the prosecutor's declaration filed in this case, "at any given time there are more than 100,000 arrest and bench warrants outstanding in California." Implicit in Sandoval's holding is the recognition that the government should have discretion concerning how to allocate its finite investigative resources and that it cannot be expected to pursue each of these 100,000 individuals with the effort it might expend to capture, for example, a serial killer.​

 

[BOR]

I also googled Serna Motion and read that same case you cite IGB.

Serna was a case that was remanded, it never absolved Serna of culpability as perceived.

My question was:

Please, can you find just ONE case, in any jurisdiction, I'll even settle for deseutude law, where a defendant was successful in a speedy trial motion where they failed to appear and used it as a defense later??

He was NOT successful in the speedy trial motion, it was remanded to determine the exact nature of the delay.


I want to know, after Remand and a Barker hearing, which was not given when moved for, the reason for the appeal, was the case then dismissed on speedy trial gounds and what was the reason!!

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

I also googled Serna Motion and read that same case you cite IGB.

Serna was a case that was remanded, it never absolved Serna of culpability as perceived.

My question was:



He was NOT successful in the speedy trial motion, it was remanded to determine the exact nature of the delay.


I want to know, after Remand and a Barker hearing, which was not given when moved for, the reason for the appeal, was the case then dismissed on speedy trial gounds and what was the reason!!

You obviously didnt comprehend the ruling as you are confusing the events and the ruling, which is a completley decided issue. Serna motions are in the books... thats a done deal. You are in denial. I cant force you to read it.

 

[CdwJava]

I am afraid I do not have the relevant case law or legal jargon to articulate this, but here is the reality as we in police work understand it with regards to old warrants ...

The law requires that law enforcement make a reasonable effort with all due diligence in order to serve an arrest warrant. If the defendant has made no effort to conceal himself and has, indeed, been in plain sight for 19 years, then it is incumbent upon law enforcement to serve the warrant within a reasonable amount if time. Waiting 19 years to serve someone who has not been on the run is generally seen as unreasonable. I know of a great many such old warrants that are tossed as a result of a motion concerning a lack of such diligence, speedy trial, or something.

While I cannot cite the specific legal reasoning, I do know that these old warrants can result in a valid arrest (and subsequent search) but often the underlying charge can be challenged and dismissed because o a lack of such due diligence in the service of the arrest warrant.

 

[reallyy]

ok thanks

Thanks very much for the responses. I do not remember this event, and lived in the county from 1976 - 1999. They never once contacted me. Not once. Why can they 'sleep' on this then 19 years later come visit me with the attitude of 'we are ready to address this now' ? I lived in the county at that very same address for another 8 Years... They sent not a SINGLE peice of mail indicating this. They Never Once Contact Me Or Issued a Bench Warrant? Really?! They forgot me and it is utter bull**** to 'cash in' now. If I could afford it I would just pay them just to end it. We BOTH have forgotten this even occurred until Just Now. Sure you can take the hard line and say I owe the fine, and technically I guess I do, but I dont remember the event and neither did they... If I am wrong so are they. Except I have a valid reason at least - I was drunk according to them. Why did they forget? Sorry for rambling but this is at such a bad time for me, it feels so lame and petty and I am getting pretty angry about it.

 

[reallyy]

Thanks very much for all of the responses, and your time. I do not remember this event, and lived in the county from 1976 - 1999. They never once contacted me. Not once. Why can they 'sleep' on this then 19 years later come visit me with the attitude of 'we are ready to address this now' ? I lived in the county at that very same address for another 8 Years... They sent not a SINGLE peice of mail indicating this. They Never Once Contact Me Or Issued a Bench Warrant? Really?! They forgot me and it is utter bull**** to 'cash in' now. If I could afford it I would just pay them just to end it. We BOTH have forgotten this even occurred until Just Now. Sure you can take the hard line and say I owe the fine, and technically I guess I do, but I dont remember the event and neither did they... If I am wrong so are they. Except I have a valid reason at least - I was drunk according to them. Why did they forget? Sorry for rambling but this is at such a bad time for me, it feels so lame and petty and I am getting pretty angry about it.

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

In some courts in CA you might just be receiving notice that they are garnishing your wages/seizing your bank account for an old FTA. "They" know most will pay, they need money, those that fight are expected to win and are irrelevant; they are squeezing their old files generating funds. FTP's have little hope at all.

 

[davew128]

I am afraid I do not have the relevant case law or legal jargon to articulate this, but here is the reality as we in police work understand it with regards to old warrants ...

The law requires that law enforcement make a reasonable effort with all due diligence in order to serve an arrest warrant. If the defendant has made no effort to conceal himself and has, indeed, been in plain sight for 19 years, then it is incumbent upon law enforcement to serve the warrant within a reasonable amount if time. Waiting 19 years to serve someone who has not been on the run is generally seen as unreasonable. I know of a great many such old warrants that are tossed as a result of a motion concerning a lack of such diligence, speedy trial, or something.

While I cannot cite the specific legal reasoning, I do know that these old warrants can result in a valid arrest (and subsequent search) but often the underlying charge can be challenged and dismissed because o a lack of such due diligence in the service of the arrest warrant.

Carl, I saw something similar along these lines on a case in the news in Boston. It involved a sexual abuse allegation from the mid 70's for a very prominent basketball coach who had been living in NY for 20 years or so. The fact that he lived in NY tolled the MA statute of limitations for prosecuting a crime that would otherwise long since run out. The language of the law spoke to someone who wasn't typically visible in the community, and IMO, last time I checked the guy was fairly visible, just in another state. I guess my problem with the prosecution was that if they REALLY wanted the guy he wasn't hard to find and NY does extradite people for sex crimes. It wasn't a Roman Polanski situation.