Bench Warrant Recall, West Covina, Then Case Dismissed

In early December 2012, our client was arrested for shoplifting at the Sears in West Covina.  She was just 21 at the time.  She was with her boyfriend, age 23.

Our client was observed taking makeup containers and placing them in holes in her hat, which had sleeves that could hold dozens of items.  The total value of the items taken was approximately $100 and all such items were recovered by Sears’ loss prevention officers.

When our client was arrested, on charges of violating Penal Code § 484(a) (petty theft), she was taken to the West Covina Police Department, where she was booked and eventually released.  When she was allowed to leave, she signed a promise to appear in the West Covina Courthouse for her arraignment about five weeks later in January 2013.

On the day set for our client’s arraignment, the client did not appear and the judge issued a bench warrant for her, setting bail at $30,000.

Eleven years later, in 2024, the client was working in Texas and her employer notified her that there was a bench warrant for her in Los Angeles County.  The employer told our client to “take care of it,” or else he would be forced to terminate her.

The client then called Greg Hill & Associates and explained what had happened.  Greg asked the client what the case was for and the client said she did not know.  She said she could not remember.

Greg then went to the courthouse and found the docket for the client’s case and told her the underlying case was for petty theft, so it most likely was for shoplifting.  The client then remembered it was indeed for shoplifting wherein she was stopped for taking “about $100 in items.”  Greg asked the client if she was arrested and she said she was.  Greg asked her if she signed a promise to appear in court and the client said she did not remember if she signed such a promise.

Greg then explained that he could appear in the West Covina Courthouse and request that the judge recall the warrant.  Greg cautioned the client that a judge could say no and require the client to appear in person, but this would be unusual.  

Greg then explained that the next issue would be to see if the client had signed a promise to appear in court.  If the client had not signed such a promise, then Greg could ask the judge to dismiss the case based on a violation of the client’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, as set forth in federal law under Barker v. Wingo (1972) 407 U.S. 514, and in California under Serna v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal. 3d 239.  Greg explained that when there is more than a one year delay in an arraignment after an arrest on a misdemeanor charge, there is “presumed prejudice” under Serna, which if not rebutted by the People under the four “Barker v. Wingo factors”, the judge could dismiss the complaint.

If the judge found that the People had rebutted the presumption of prejudice, perhaps by showing that the client had provided a home address that was false or she had moved outside California (the People did not have to search for her outside California), then the case would proceed to an arraignment and Greg would appear for the client and enter a not guilty plea.

Then Greg would try to resolve the case for judicial diversion, which Greg explained to the client.

The client then retained Greg Hill & Associates and Greg then appeared in the West Covina Court on the bench warrant.

The case was assigned to a newer judge to the courthouse and a young district attorney.  Greg and the young prosecutor then looked through the police report and the prosecutor commented, “that Sears no longer exists.”  Greg responded, “Well, then I’m not sure you can call to trial if the employees are all gone.”  The DA responded, “you’re right.  I’ll dismiss the case.”

The judge then called the matter and Greg requested first that the judge recall the bench warrant, which he did.  The District Attorney then announced to the judge that the People were unable to proceed (“UTP”) and the judge dismissed the case in the interest of justice.

Later that day, Greg explained to the client that the bench warrant was recalled and the case was dismissed.  The client was happy with this.