Pretrial Motions to Dismiss
Category > Pretrial Motions to Dismiss
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the insurance fraud charges under section 1385 four years after the incident.The trial court did not err by dismissing felony and misdemeanor insurance fraud charges in furtherance of justice under Penal Code section 1385. All charges arose out of a submission of a single false insurance claim in the amount of $360. The case had been pending for four years, defendant had no prior criminal record, had not reoffended during the four year period, and given his education and experience, the conviction would have impacted his career. While many judges would not have granted the motion, the judge who did so did not abuse his discretion. id: 25141
Defendant could not file a nonstatutory motion to dismiss a 2005 prior claiming counsel failed to advise that deportation was mandatory even though habeas corpus or error coram nobis were no longer available.In 2005, defendant pled guilty to possessing marijuana for sale and acknowledged he had been advised that deportation would be a consequence of the plea. After he completed his probation, the plea was withdrawn and the case dismissed under Penal Code section 1203.4. After pleading guilty to two offenses in another case, he filed “a nonstatutory motion to set aside” the 2005 conviction. However, the law does not provide for such a nonstatutory motion even where other remedies such as habeas corpus or coram nobis are no longer available.id: 22713
For purposes of the Detainers Act term of imprisonment does not begin until all trial matters are concluded.By the time investigation of this case was completed defendant was in Tennessee facing other charges. He argued that section 1389 of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD) was violated when he was not returned to California from Tennessee for trial within the 180 days specified by Article III of the statute. For purposes of the IAD term of imprisonment does not begin until all matters are concluded in the trial court, before and after sentencing. The new trial motion necessitated defendant's presence of the IAD and the letter to the Orange County District Attorney demanding a trial did not constitute a de facto detainer.id: 11980
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245