Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a writ of prohibition was sought by the petitioner, who was charged with multiple counts of burglary. The petitioner contended that his prosecution should be dismissed under Penal Code section 995 due to the violation of his rights under Penal Code section 859b. This statute requires that a preliminary examination occur within 10 court days following the arraignment if the defendant is in custody and does not waive this right. The petitioner was in custody at the time of his arraignment, and his preliminary examination was delayed beyond the 10-day period without a valid waiver. The magistrate erroneously ruled that the requirement was inapplicable post-release from custody. The court found that any purported waiver was invalid as it was based on erroneous advice given by the court, and the petitioner's later release did not nullify his right to a timely preliminary examination. The court concluded that the trial court's denial of the petitioner's motion to dismiss was erroneous, subsequently granting a writ of prohibition to halt further proceedings and mandating the dismissal of charges. Judges Scott and Halvonik concurred with the ruling.
Legal Issues Addressed
Amendment Impact on Statutory Interpretationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized that reliance on past decisions was inappropriate due to amendments clearly requiring a personal waiver by the defendant.
Reasoning: Reliance on past decisions regarding Penal Code section 1382 is misplaced because the 1977 amendment to section 859b explicitly states that only a personal waiver by the defendant is valid.
Error Induced by Incorrect Judicial Guidancesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that the petitioner's agreement to a continuance, based on the court's incorrect guidance, did not constitute a valid waiver of his statutory rights.
Reasoning: The Attorney General's argument that the petitioner invited error by agreeing to the continuance is flawed, as it stemmed from the court's incorrect guidance.
Preliminary Examination Timeliness under Penal Code Section 859bsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the statutory right to a preliminary examination within 10 court days is not waived by the defendant's release from custody after arraignment.
Reasoning: Penal Code section 859b mandates that a preliminary examination cannot extend beyond 10 court days if the defendant is in custody at arraignment. In this case, the petitioner was in custody at the time of his arraignment, and his later release does not affect his statutory right.
Waiver of Timeliness Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A valid waiver of the 10-day preliminary examination requirement requires the defendant to personally waive it, and any misunderstanding due to court's erroneous advice renders such waiver invalid.
Reasoning: A valid waiver of this right requires the defendant to personally waive it within 10 days. The Attorney General contends that the petitioner waived his rights by agreeing to a later date for the preliminary hearing; however, this agreement was contingent on the petitioner understanding that he was not waiving time.