The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb
DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424 Federal Defender COURTNEY FEIN, Bar #244785 Designated Counsel for Service 801 I Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 498-5700 Attorney for Defendant RICHARD ANTHONY PACLI
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER; CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING
TIME Date: January 28, 2012 Time: 9:30 a.m. Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, SAMUEL WONG, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, and COURTNEY FEIN, attorney for RICHARD ANTHONY PACLI, that the status conference date of November 13, 2012, be vacated, and the matter be set for status conference on January 28, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. The reason for the continuance is that several further discussions at separate visits with Mr. Pacli are necessary to discuss facts important to the preparation and handling of his defense in this case. In addition, defense counsel notes that the potential consequences of a plea in this case differ in rather substantial ways from the potential consequences of going to trial and requires time to further explain why that is the case to her client so that he can intelligently decide what course of action to take.
Based upon the foregoing, the parties agree that the time under the Speedy Trial Act should be excluded from the date of the parties' stipulation through and including November 13, 2012, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(7)(A)and (B)(iv)[reasonable time to prepare] and
Local Code T4 based upon the need for defense preparation. The parties further stipulate that the Court shall find that the ends of justice to be served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN and the stipulation of all parties, it is ordered that the November 13, 2012, status conference hearing be continued to January 28, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. Based on the representation of defense counsel and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court hereby 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 a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. It is ordered that time beginning from the date of the parties' stipulation, November 5, 2012, up to and including the January 28, 2013 status conference shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T-4, to allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...