The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton
ORDER SETTING NEW STATUS CONFERENCE DATE AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT Court: Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton
On March 7, 2013, the Court held a regularly scheduled status conference. Assistant United States Attorney Samuel Wong appeared on behalf of plaintiff United States of America. Assistant Federal Defender Douglas Beevers appeared with defendant Crescencio Delgado-Ezquivel, who was present in custody. Dina Santos, Esq., appeared for her client defendant Waldo Perez-Mendoza, who was not in custody and not present, but has a waiver of appearance on file. Ms. Santos also appeared specially for defense attorney Danny D. Brace, Esq., for defendant Armando Vasquez-Barragan, who was present in custody.
Michael Hansen, Esq., appeared with his client defendant Norma Gonzalez, who was in custody. Dwight Samuel, appeared with his client defendant Victor Gonzalez, who was in custody.
AFD Beevers advised the Court that he needed additional time to consider retesting of the alleged methamphetamine seized in this case. All counsel agreed that the parties desired additional time to further investigate the case, attempt to settle this case, and advise the defendants of the ramifications of any settlement offers made.
The parties requested and agreed that: (1) the Court hold a status conference on April 9, 2013 at 9:15 a.m.; and (2) the time period from the March 7, 2013, hearing to, and including, the new status conference hearing on April 9, 2013, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), and Local Code T4.
Based on the representations and stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court sets a new status conference hearing on April 9, 2013, at 9:15 a.m. The Court orders that time from March 7, 2013, to, and including, April 9, 2013, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), and Local Code T4 pertaining to defense preparation.
The Court 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 interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...