Page 1
16-Year Delay in Prosecution Violated Right to Speedy Trial Under State Constitution—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Court of Appeal for this district held Friday that the prosecution of a man on one count of wrongful diversion of construction funds, instituted in 2007, must come to an end.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Shelly B. Torrealba denied a motion to dismiss the information.
In an opinion granting a petition for a writ of prohibition, Justice Rashida A. Adams of Div. Three declared that the 16-year gap between the filing of a felony complaint against Victor Arriaga and his arraignment in 2023 was violative of the right to a speedy trial under Art. I, §15 of the California Constitution.
The justice recited:
“On February 2, 2007, the district attorney filed a felony complaint and an arrest warrant issued. However, the People concede there is no evidence that law enforcement ever attempted to contact Arriaga or inform him about the warrant.
“It appears that at some point—the record does not reveal when—Arriaga relocated to Nevada.”
He did not learn of the warrant until 2022, and came to Los Angeles in June 2023 to clear matter up. The warrant was recalled, but the District Attorney’s Office filed an information; a preliminary hearing was conducted and Arriaga was held to answer; the prosecution proceeded.
Adams wrote:
“Substantial evidence did not support the conclusion that the People’s delay in prosecuting Arriaga was justified. It is undisputed that the People made no effort to bring Arriaga to trial before his arraignment. The record reflects no attempts by the People to locate Arriaga during this period. Nor is there evidence that the People tried to contact Arriaga. The People concede that there is no evidence indicating they gave Arriaga notice of the warrant….Moreover, the People represented that in 2024, an investigation by the district attorney’s office revealed Arriaga had applied for a driver’s license in Nevada in 2011.”
Quoting from the California Supreme Court’s 1970 decision in Jones v. Superior Court, Adams said:
“There can be no valid police purpose for a delay where, as here, the defendant is ‘not in hiding and his whereabouts could have been discovered by a routine, uncomplicated investigation.’ ”
The jurist pointed out that the death of Arriaga’s death in 2011 might mean that the delay was prejudicial. The father purportedly would have testified that Arriaga, a contractor, did use funds from a project to pay wages.
The case is Arriaga v. Superior Court (People), B340795.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company