MARTINEZ — In a decision that judges across the state can use for guidance in similar cases, a California appeals court sided with a defendant who contended that his right to a speedy preliminary hearing was denied last March amidst the COVID-19 statewide shutdown of the courts system.
The First District Appellate Court’s June decision — reaffirmed for publication last month — centers on the issue of a person’s right to a speedy preliminary hearing. During a preliminary hearing, someone who’s charged with a felony has the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and argue before a judge that prosecutors have failed to meet their burden to bring charges.
In this case, a Bay Area man named Dyjuan Bullock was charged with human trafficking and pimping in a case that alleged he pimped two women in Contra Costa County. The published appeals court decision reverses and order by Contra Costa Judge David Goldstein, which found Bullock’s right to a speedy preliminary hearing had not been violated. Judge Anita Santos later upheld Goldstein’s order.
The decision comes with a bitter irony for Bullock: when the appeals court ruled in his favor June 25, he had accepted a plea deal on pimping charges — and a three-year state prison sentence — just days earlier. Otherwise, the charges against him would have been dismissed.
At issue was this: Bullock refused to waive his right to a speedy preliminary hearing within 10 days. As luck would have it, the 10th day occurred just two weeks after the state court system ground to a hear halt as the virus spread throughout California.
Jury trials were suspended for months, an action that appeals courts have upheld. But unlike trials, where dozens of citizens are called to appear for jury duty in court, a preliminary hearing simply requires the presence of a judge, a clerk, a court reporter, and parties to the case.
When Bullock’s preliminary hearing extended past 15 days, the charges against him should have been dismissed, the appeals court judges wrote. Superior court judges were “clearly mistaken” when they ruled otherwise, the decision says.
“There is no dispute that (Bullock) remained in custody solely on the underlying complaint for more than the extended 15-court-day period without receiving a preliminary hearing,” appeals court judges wrote. They later added, “Because the record does not support a finding that there was a nexus between the pandemic and the Superior Court’s purported inability to conduct preliminary hearings during the second half of March, the Superior Court abused its discretion in rejecting an in-custody defendant’s demand for a prompt preliminary examination.”
After the decision, a legal fight continued the case for another three months. The Contra Costa District Attorney’s office filed a motion asking for the case to be unpublished, meaning that it would no longer be used to dictate other cases. The county’s public defender’s office fought the DA’s motion and won in a Sept. 9 ruling.
