The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424 Federal Defender DOUGLAS BEEVERS, USVI #766 Assistant Federal Defender Designated Counsel for Service 801 I Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 498-5700 Attorney for Defendant THERESA ANN CARR
STIPULATION AND[PROPOSED]ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE Date: September 21, 2012 Time: 9:00 a.m. Judge: Hon. Garland E. Burrell
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the parties, SAMUEL WONG, Assistant United States Attorney, DOUGLAS BEEVERS, Assistant Federal Defender, attorney for defendant THERESA ANN CARR, and JAN KAROWSKY, Esq.,attorney for defendant ROBERT CARR, that the status conference of July 20, 2012 at 9:00 a.m., be vacated, and the matter be set for status conference on September 21, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.
The reason for the continuance is allow defense counsel Jan Karowsky additional time to review the discovery, consult with his client, perform legal research and investigation and to determine the merits of the motion to withdraw Robert Carr's guilty pleas to Counts One, Two, and Sixty Nine of the Superseding Indictment previously entered on February 24, 2012. Theresa Carr's previously guilty pleas to the same counts was based on a plea agreement conditioned on a package deal with her husband and co-defendant Robert Carr, and, therefore her sentencing should not go forward until after Robert Carr's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas is resolved or he repudiates any desire to file such a motion and, instead, reaffirms his guilty pleas.
IT IS STIPULATED by the parties that the status conference previously set for July 20, 2012 be vacated and reset for September 21, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.; that the Court shall find that this case remains unusual and complex as there are over 30 boxes of documents involved in this case and it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself with the time limits established in the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161; that the continuance requested herein is necessary to provide new defense counsel for Robert Carr reasonable time to prepare, and advise Robert Carr regarding his client's defenses and any motion to withdraw his guilty pleas taking into account due diligence within the meaning of the Speedy Trial Act; and that time from the date of this stipulation, July 19, 2012, to and including September 21, 2012, shall be excluded from computation of time within the trial of this case must be commenced under Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h) (7) (A) and (B) (ii) and (iv), and Local Codes T2 (unusual and complex case) and T4 (reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare).
The Court, having received, read, and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties and the recitation of facts contained therein, the Court finds that this case is unusual and complex and that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in 18 U.S.C. § 3161. In addition, the Court specifically finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.
The Court orders that the time from the date of the parties stipulation, July 19, 2012, to and including September 21, 2012, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161
(h) (7) (A) and (B) (ii) and (iv), and Local Codes T2 (unusual and complex case) and T4 (reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare). IT is further ordered that the July 20, 2012 status conference be vacated and reset for September 21, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...