Bench Warrant Recalled, Long Beach, Case Dismissed (Serna)

In 2014, our client and her friend went into the CVS Pharmacy located on East Willow in Long Beach.  At the time, our client was 28 years old and her friend was the same age.

The pair then proceeded to shoplift eye liners, lipsticks, make-up creams and other various hygienic items that the store valued at approximately $210.  As the two were leaving the store, loss prevention stopped them and called the Long Beach Police Department, who came to the store.

Our client, who is African American, was listed as Cambodian on the police report.  Her friend was also described as Cambodian, but she was Hispanic.

The Long Beach Police Department detained our client and her friend, eventually issuing both a ticket for petty theft (Penal Code § 484(a)) and having each sign a promise to appear in the Long Beach Superior Court in about two months.

Our client did not appear as promised and forgot about the incident at CVS.

Ten years later, however, her employer notified her that there was an outstanding bench warrant for her out of the Long Beach Court and that if she did not resolve it, she would be terminated.

The client then called Greg Hill & Associates and spoke with Greg.  She explained her situation and frankly stated that she did not know why the warrant was issued.  She then gave Greg the warrant number and Greg was able to correlate it to the case number on the Los Angeles Superior Court website.  Greg explained what he was able to see from the Los Angeles Superior Court website, which included that the case arose out of a petty theft charge.

The client immediately remembered what the petty theft incident was and asked Greg what he could do.  Greg explained that he could appear on the client’s behalf in the Long Beach court and ask the judge assigned to the case to recall the warrant.  Greg cautioned that while he was able to appear on the client’s in court under Penal Code § 977 after the bench warrant was recalled, the judge had discretion whether to allow him to appear without the client in recalling even a misdemeanor bench warrant.  In other words, the judge could require the client to appear in court with Greg in order to have the bench warrant recalled.

The second issue was having the case dismissed based on a deprivation of our client’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial under Serna v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 239, 707 P.2d 793, 219 Cal.Rptr. 420 because more than one year had passed since the date of the alleged crime and she was not arraigned, as well as under Barker v. Wingo (1972) 407 U.S. 514, a United States Supreme Court that sets for what is unfair prejudice due to a delay in prosecution.  While more than one year had certainly passed for our client – ten years had passed – a judge would hesitate to grant such a motion to dismiss if our client signed a promise to appear in court and then did not appear.  The judge would be concerned with rewarding someone (our client) for breaching a signed promise.

The client then retained Greg Hill & Associates and Greg then appeared without the client in the Long Beach Superior Court.  The judicial officer there (a commissioner, not a judge) had a reputation for being tough on bench warrant recalls by requiring the defendant to appear in person, but he permitted Greg to appear on the client’s behalf.

The commissioner then recalled the bench warrant.

The file materials included a police report, which stated that the client and her friend both signed promises to appear in court, but no photocopy of the promise was attached to the police report, as it commonly is.

After the Long Beach City Prosecutor agreed to waive written notice of a motion to dismiss, Greg therefore made a motion to dismiss under Serna, the Sixth Amendment and Barker v. Wingo.  The commissioner looked into the file and saw that there was no signed promise to appear.  He therefore granted the motion, which made our client very happy.