Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Inaction Requires Dismissal of Child Molestation Charges
Following Reversal of Conviction, Remittitur Was Received in Superior Court but No Steps Were Taken to Retry Defendant Within 60 Days of Filing; Receipt by Court Constituted ‘Filing,’ Opinion Says
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A foul-up in the Sacramento Superior Court has resulted in a barring of the retrial of a man whose conviction for child molestation was reversed in 2022, under a decision issued yesterday by the Third District Court of Appeal.
Defendant Adam Walsworth was not brought to trial within 60 days of the “filing” of the remittitur, the appeals court held, determining that a “filing” occurred when the envelope containing a copy of the remittitur arrived at the Superior Court’s Clerk’s Office.
Penal Code §1382(a)(2) mandates dismissal, absent good cause, where a felony defendant “is not brought to trial within 60 days of…the filing of the remittitur in the trial court.”
Unconsciousness Defense
Walsworth committed his alleged offense in 2017. Rejecting his defense of unconsciousness at the time of the act in question, he was convicted of performing of a lewd act on a child under the age of 14.
Sacramento Superior Court Judge James Arguelles sentenced him to six years in prison.
The Third District reversed the conviction on Aug. 24, 2022. The opinion by Acting Presiding Justice Louis Mauro says:
“We agree the trial court abused its discretion by admitting character evidence and erred by adding language to the instruction on the defense of unconsciousness. We also agree the errors were cumulatively prejudicial and require reversal and remand for a new trial.”
The language added to the standard instruction by Arguelles was this:
“A defendant’s inability to remember or his hazy recollection does not supply an evidentiary foundation for unconsciousness. It must be something more than the defendant’s mere statement that he does not remember what happened to justify a finding that he was unconscious at the time of the act.”
Nov. 1, 2022
The remittitur was issued on Oct. 27, 2022. It was received in the mail at the Sacramento Superior Court on Nov. 1.
But nothing was done to bring about a retrial.
Walworth’s appellate lawyer sent a letter to that court inquiring as to the status of a retrial, attaching a copy of the demurrer. Argüelles received the letter with the attachment last Feb. 1, 97 days after the remittitur was issued, ordered that the remittitur be filed, and scheduled a hearing.
The inmate moved for a dismissal based on §1382. Arguelles denied the motion, ruling that the 60-day period commenced running on Feb. 1.
Yesterday, the Third District granted a writ of mandate ordering the Sacramento Superior Court to vacate Arguelles’s order denying dismissal and to enter a new order granting Walsworth’s motion.
Mesiwala’s Opinion
Justice Shama Hakim Mesiwala wrote:
“Here, section 1382 requires the remittitur be filed with the trial court, meaning the court in the county in which the trial was conducted, and the California Rules of Court deem a filing effective when it is received by the court clerk. Respondent court’s local rules have no specific filing requirements for a remittitur. Although respondent court’s internal procedures direct the sentencing judge’s department to file the remittitur, such procedures are not properly promulgated local rules and are not known to the public. Thus, respondent court lacks authority to require filing of the remittitur with the judge’s department….Accordingly, the filing of the remittitur occurred on November 1, 2022, when it was received by the appeals clerk….Section 1382 was violated when petitioner was not brought to trial before December 31, 2022, the 60th day after the filing of the remittitur.”
She added:
“The People provide no explanation of good cause for the delay, and we find none.”
The case is Walsworth v. Superior Court (People), C098517.
Copyright 2023, Metropolitan News Company