How Can I Appeal a Motion for Continuance for Religious Liberty Denial
Re: Can You Appeal Based Upon Denial of a Continuance
People v. Maddox , 67 Cal.2d 647Quoting That Guy
Not to worry... Rest assured that before this post goes public, I would have proven that you are still ignorant of a lot, including but not limited to 40519.
[3] In short, just as a defendant may not be brought to trial too late (Cal. Const., art. I, � 13; Pen. Code, �� 686, [67 Cal.2d 653] 1382; Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) 386 U.S. 213 [18 L.Ed.2d 1, 87 S.Ct. 988]), he may also not be brought to trial too soon, i.e., without adequate opportunity for preparation of his defense (see, e.g., In re Newbern (1960) 53 Cal.2d 786, 790 [3 Cal.Rptr. 364, 350 P.2d 116]; Cornell v. Superior Court (1959) 52 Cal.2d 99, 102-103 [338 P.2d 447]; In re Ochse (1951) 38 Cal.2d 230, 231 [238 P.2d 561]; People v. Sarazzawski (1945) supra, 27 Cal.2d 7, 17; cf. People v. Douglas (1964) 61 Cal.2d 430, 434 [38 Cal.Rptr. 384, 392 P.2d 964]). Implementing this rule, the Legislature has provided that "After his plea, the defendant is entitled to at least five days to prepare for trial." (Pen. Code, � 1049.) A violation of this statute is not just a procedural deficiency, but an error of constitutional dimensions: "forcing petitioner to trial in less than the minimum time provided by statute to prepare a defense, despite requests for a continuance, resulted in a denial of due process of law." (In re Newbern (1960) supra, 53 Cal.2d 786, 791.)
These principles are equally applicable to a defendant who competently elects to serve as his own attorney. It is true that such a defendant "is not entitled either to privileges and indulgences not accorded attorneys or to privileges and indulgences not accorded defendants who are represented by counsel." (People v. Mattson (1959) 51 Cal.2d 777, 794 [336 P.2d 937].) But neither is he entitled to less consideration than such persons. In particular he must be given, if he requires it, as much time to prepare for trial as an attorney; and if a reasonable continuance is necessary for this purpose, it must be granted upon timely request. To deny him that opportunity would be to render his right to appear in propria persona an empty formality, and in effect deny him the right to counsel.Now who is ignorant?
Re: Can You Appeal Based Upon Denial of a Continuance
Quoting lawlessca
People v. Maddox , 67 Cal.2d 647
[3] In short, just as a defendant may not be brought to trial
{(2.a)} too late (Cal. Const., art. I, � 13; Pen. Code, �� 686, [67 Cal.2d 653] 1382; Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) 386 U.S. 213 [18 L.Ed.2d 1, 87 S.Ct. 988]), he may also not be brought to trial {(2.b)} too soon, i.e., without adequate opportunity for preparation of his defense (see, e.g., In re Newbern (1960) 53 Cal.2d 786, 790 [3 Cal.Rptr. 364, 350 P.2d 116]; Cornell v. Superior Court (1959) 52 Cal.2d 99, 102-103 [338 P.2d 447]; In re Ochse (1951) 38 Cal.2d 230, 231 [238 P.2d 561]; People v. Sarazzawski (1945) supra, 27 Cal.2d 7, 17; cf. People v. Douglas (1964) 61 Cal.2d 430, 434 [38 Cal.Rptr. 384, 392 P.2d 964]). Implementing this rule, the Legislature has provided that "After his plea, the defendant is entitled to at least five days to prepare for trial." (Pen. Code, � 1049.) A violation of this statute is not just a procedural deficiency, but an error of constitutional dimensions: "forcing petitioner to trial in less than the minimum time provided by statute to prepare a defense, despite requests for a continuance, resulted in a denial of due process of law." (In re Newbern (1960) supra, 53 Cal.2d 786, 791.)
competently
These principles are equally applicable to a defendant who {(1)}elects to serve as his own attorney. It is true that such a defendant "is not entitled either to privileges and indulgences not accorded attorneys or to privileges and indulgences not accorded defendants who are represented by counsel." (People v. Mattson (1959) 51 Cal.2d 777, 794 [336 P.2d 937].) But neither is he entitled to less consideration than such persons. In particular he must be given, if he requires it, as much time to prepare for trial as an attorney; and if a reasonable continuance is necessary for this purpose, it must be granted upon {(3)} timely request. To deny him that opportunity would be to render his right to appear in propria persona an empty formality, and in effect deny him the right to counsel.
Now who is ignorant?
Certainly not you. You are far beyond ignorant... You're obviously STUPID!
{(1)} For starters, the word competent (underlined and marked with {(1)} above) would not apply to you.
{(2)} In your case, there is no "too late" (see {(2.a)} below and you'll see how you controlled the too "late part"); nor is there a "too soon" (see {(2.b)} below you'll see how you controlled the "too soon" part).
{(2.a)} The case was not delayed by the state, it was delayed by you when you went FTA. During the time you were FTA, you had plenty of opportunity to seek, consult and hire counsel; you did not do so!
{(2.b)} Nobody forced you to use a method by which you gave implied consent to a request for an arraignment and a trial on the same date. Furthermore, when you received notice of the same date arraignment/trial, you still had ample time to object and attempt a change. You failed to do so! so you implicitly gave a waiver of time between the arraignment and the trial.
{(3)} You requested a continuance at the beginning of your trial and that was rejected simply because it was not timely. A timely request would be two days in advance of the hearing date; you received notice of your hearing date well in advance of that day when you were in court. Nobody told you to wait until your court date to ask; you could have asked in a timely manner but you didn't. What's even worse is that you come back and ask for one as part of your closing statement. That's the biggest dumbass move I have ever heard of! You have got to be kidding me!
{(4)} (This is the BONUS - it is not marked above) You are now well past the time when you can file for an appeal. That alone would mean you should refrain from reviving a thread where you've proven to be stupider than stupid. I've explained each and every point 1 through 3 as well as this last point # 4 and much more, yet you come back acting all righteous and smart like you found a solution to world peace; only to dig yourself deeper into your state of oblivion!
Does that answer your question?Happy now?
Re: Can You Appeal Based Upon Denial of a Continuance
Thank you for taking time to reply.I did object to trial. Here is transcript of trial.
D:I am would like to move to motion to dismiss on account of prosecution failure to provide discovery.
C: I already denied that Sir. Anything else?
D: I would like to move trial by Judge.
C: Denied. Anything else?
D: Yes. Affadivit of Prejudical premptory challenge to Judicial Officer.
C: Denied you are to late. Your 170.6 denied.
D: I would like to submit this to sir. This request.
C: Are you ready to go.
D: No.
C: Alrite. we will go anyway. Officer when you are ready you may proceed.
D: I want continuation..
C: And what's your question?
D: because I was not presented evidence.
C: Ok.
D: I want continuation because I was not presented discovery request.
C: It's already been denied Sir.
D: I am asking for continuation.
C: Denied. Officer when you are ready you may proceed.I was forced into trial.
"forcing petitioner to trial in less than the minimum time provided by statute to prepare a defense, despite requests for a continuance, resulted in a denial of due process of law." (In re Newbern (1960) supra, 53 Cal.2d 786, 791.)
Furthermore about discovery:
If the motion is untimely, i.e., not asserted within a reasonable time before trial, the defendant must justify the delay. People v Horton (1995) 11 C4th 1068, 1110, 47 CR2d 516.Court sent notice to old address and then resend notice to new address before 13 days when I submitted discovery.
I requested continuance on the day I received notice to clerk window. Clerk said that they cannot change the date as it was set by commissioner.Furthermore, I was not advice that my license maybe suspended.
As there was FTA 40508.5 which is misdemeanor. Court failed to advice defendant of disadvantages of self representation. People v Noriega (1997) 59 CA4th 311, 319–322, 69 CR2d 127 (conviction reversed for court's failure to so advise defendant before granting motion for self-representation).
Re: Can You Appeal Based Upon Denial of a Continuance
Oh STFU!!! In one post you imply I am ignorant and in the next you are kissing ass? As if it is up to me to make good of your court cases after you screwed them up royally!
Thank you for taking time to reply.
Oh, so you have a transcript?
I did object to trial. Here is transcript of trial.
D:I am would like to move to motion to dismiss on account of prosecution failure to provide discovery.
C: I already denied that Sir. Anything else?
D: I would like to move trial by Judge.
C: Denied. Anything else?
D: Yes. Affadivit of Prejudical premptory challenge to Judicial Officer.
C: Denied you are to late. Your 170.6 denied.
D: I would like to submit this to sir. This request.
C: Are you ready to go.
D: No.
C: Alrite. we will go anyway. Officer when you are ready you may proceed.
D: I want continuation..
C: And what's your question?
D: because I was not presented evidence.
C: Ok.
D: I want continuation because I was not presented discovery request.
C: It's already been denied Sir.
D: I am asking for continuation.
C: Denied. Officer when you are ready you may proceed.
This ought to be a demonstration of the insanity that is traffic court!
Post the transcript in its entirety!
meansplefuspritir.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146156&page=2
0 Response to "How Can I Appeal a Motion for Continuance for Religious Liberty Denial"
Post a Comment