Court rules against delays in preliminary hearings

While the coronavirus has put some judicial proceedings on hold, a state appeals court says the outbreak doesn’t justify ignoring legal deadlines for a preliminary hearing, where a judge decides whether prosecutors have enough evidence to keep a defendant in custody and go to trial.

Under California law, a defendant is normally entitled to a preliminary hearing within 10 court days of being arraigned on a felony charge or pleading not guilty. Chief Justice Tani CantilSakauye, using her legal authority, extended that deadline twice in March, to 15 and then to 30 days, because of court closures and other obstacles created by the pandemic.

Courts can follow that extended timetable but cannot use COVID19 as a rationale for further delays in preliminary hearings, unless they have evidence of a need for a postponement in a specific case, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said Wednesday in a case from Contra Costa County.

Allowing judges to put off the hearings “risks detaining the defendant for a prolonged period on a groundless complaint” or charge, Justice Mark Simons said in the 30 ruling.

The ruling won’t help the defendant in the case,

Dyjuan Bullock, because he reached a plea agreement while the ruling was pending and pleaded no contest to a felony charge of pimping. But county Public Defender Robin Lipetzky, whose office represented Bullock, said the decision could affect many other cases and would add “a layer of protection that we did not have before.”

“This reminds courts that dueprocess considerations that are so important can’t just be brushed aside using the pandemic as an excuse,” Lipetzky said in an interview.

Bullock was charged March 3, pleaded not guilty the next day and was scheduled for a preliminary hearing

March 16, eight court days later. On that day, the county closed its courthouses because of the coronavirus, and CantilSakauye issued an emergency order increasing the hearing deadline statewide from 10 to 15 days.

Bullock remained in custody, and his hearing was rescheduled for March 25, the last day under the new deadline. No hearing was held, and his lawyer moved to dismiss the charges. Superior Court Judge David Goldstein refused, citing CantilSakauye’s March 30 order extending the deadline to 30 days.

At the hearing April 9, another judge, Anita Santos, found enough evidence to proceed with the prosecution, and said the postponements were justified by the “major public health emergency.”

But the appeals court said the emergency did not justify acrosstheboard delays of critical proceedings in which a defendant is legally entitled to present evidence, question witnesses and contest the charges. The court also said CantilSakauye’s March 30 order was not retroactive and that Bullock should have gotten a hearing within 15 days of his arraignment.

Simons noted that another division of the San Francisco court, in a June 9 ruling, had upheld postponement of a trial date and cited a separate order by the chief justice putting jury trials on hold for 90 days.

But “there is a greater need during a pandemic to postpone trials, which present a higher risk of spreading infection because they involve more witnesses and large numbers of potential jurors,” Simons said. He said preliminary hearings generally do not pose the same risks and noted that, even during the closure, the court in Martinez had kept one department open for urgent proceedings.

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@ sfchronicle.com Twitter: @BobEgelko