The Court of Appeal appears ready to rule against District Attorney Mike Hestrin’s claim that a criminal case was incorrectly dismissed in Riverside Superior Court.
In a May 2 oral hearing for the case People v. Tapia, appellate justices said that the court has had a proven history of underfunding that led to a backlog, and that at the time of the dismissed case the court did not know that the pandemic was a cause.
The decision is not yet final.
Riverside Superior Court cannot comment on the case due to ethical considerations. Follow Our Courts reached out to the District Attorney’s Office for comment.
The court dismissed 972 felonies and 1,685 misdemeanor cases between October and April 7, according to the District Attorney’s dismissal data. California’s Speedy Trial Law requires criminal cases to be brought within 60 days of an indictment, unless a trial court finds “good cause” to delay the case an extra 60 days. The Court of Appeal has ruled that a backlog due to Riverside’s chronic underfunding does not qualify as good cause to delay a case, while a backlog due to the pandemic does. The debate between the district attorney and the court lays on the difference of opinion between these causes.
Reports after dismissal
Two reports, that came out after People v. Tapia was dismissed, proved that the backlog was due to the pandemic and not the court’s underfunding, Deputy District Attorney Jesse Male argued. He urged the Court of Appeal to accept supplemental briefing, but his request was denied, without prejudice.
“It would be unusual for us to go too far, to say that the trial court was wrong, but that was based on statistics that did not exist yet. That’s what you’re asking us to do,” Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, Justice Michael Raphael said.
One of those reports showed that Riverside Superior Court had a smaller post-pandemic backlog than four other California counties, including San Bernardino Superior Court.
Male argued that the court already knew their own statistics, even though they weren’t published and available to the public.
“When a court issues an (order to show cause), it’s incumbent on the court to produce any evidence it has to support its position,” Male said.
Other causes
Raphael said that the court’s chronic underfunding cannot be the only reason why the cases are being dismissed.
“The overall point of the tentative is that Riverside Courts are chronically underfunded, need more judges. If you look at the judicial workload assessments, no one can disagree with that. What is the connection between that and dismissing cases? Because this has gone on for a generation, and there are some years where the court has not dismissed cases,” he said.
Male urged the court to focus on the pandemic.
“We need to focus on the moment of congestion. The moment of congestion did not occur until the pandemic. There’s nothing in the record showing any dismissals from congestion in the years leading up to the pandemic,” Male said.
The court did claim that the underfunding was the only cause of the backlog. In press releases, the court said that the pandemic exacerbated the backlog caused by underfunding, and Tapia’s attorney, Laura Arnold, repeated those statements. The court’s attorney, Sloan Simmons of Lozano Smith, also said that the court executive officer and district attorney also influence the backlog.
Male said that he did not need to prove that the backlog was entirely caused by the pandemic to win his case.
“When there is a good cause that is a substantial factor, the trial court has to find that that is a good cause excusing compliance with the presumptive due date.”
Simmons appeared remotely and only answered one question posed by the Court of Appeal regarding the causes of the backlog.
“While there are 89 (judges) funded and filled, the data shows that what Riverside County actually needs is 111 (judges),” Simmons said.
Tapia was charged with one count of assault with a deadly weapon Feb. 18, 2021. A DA press release said he used a machete. During the hearing, Male said the victim was attacked by his uncle, who wanted his gaming console.
Watch oral argument here.
Read our prior coverage here:
