From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Camilo

Supreme Court of California
May 21, 1886
69 Cal. 540 (Cal. 1886)

Opinion

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, and from an order refusing a new trial.

         COUNSEL:

         J. M. Lucas, for Petitioner.

          Attorney-General Marshall, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: In Bank. McKee, J. Myrick, J., Morrison, C. J., Ross, J., Thornton, J., and McKinstry, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          McKEE, Judge

It is the policy of the law, that persons charged with crime shall have a speedy as well as a fair and impartial trial. To that end it is provided by section 1382, Penal Code: -- 541 " The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, must order the prosecution to be dismissed in the following cases:

         .. . .

         " 2. If a defendant, whose trial has not been postponed upon his application, is not brought to trial within sixty days after the filing of the indictment or filing of the information."

         The defendant moved to dismiss the prosecution against him on that ground, and subsequently on the same ground moved in arrest of judgment. Both motions were denied, and we think there was no error in the rulings of the court, because the record shows that sufficient cause was shown for not bringing the action against the defendant to trial within sixty days after the filing of the information.

         As this is the only assignment of error presented by the record, the judgment and order are affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Camilo

Supreme Court of California
May 21, 1886
69 Cal. 540 (Cal. 1886)
Case details for

People v. Camilo

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ANGEL CAMILO, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: May 21, 1886

Citations

69 Cal. 540 (Cal. 1886)
11 P. 128

Citing Cases

People v. Johnson

See Marcotte v. Municipal Court (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 235, 242-243 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 314]; People v. Rutkowsky…

People v. Clayton

In the case of People v. Benc, 130 Cal. 159 [ 62 P. 404], it is held that where the reason for not bringing…