The previous location had a set of problems that could no longer be ignored. The old location was no longer adequate to meet the demands of the community of Long Beach. Lines would extend outside the building; there were issues of overcrowding, rodent and cockroach infestations, as well as security concerns.

According to the spokesperson for the state Administrative Office of the Courts, the financial backing for this courthouse was met from a combination of private and public funding. This new approach for private and public funding for public projects was started by former governor Schwarzenegger. The plan is that the developer paid for the construction of the building upfront, in turn the state of California will repay that amount plus interest over a 35 year period.

Here is a video of the new courthouse provided courtesy of Gazettes.com

If you are having trouble viewing the video, you can see it here.

Misdemeanor cases affected by the speedy trial clause of the US and California Constitution are controlled by the case of Serna v. Superior Court (1985) 219 Cal Rptr 420. The typical situation that deals with a speedy trial right is when a Defendant is arrested for a crime but the District Attorney does not file by the time indicated on the notice to appear. Then, either the Defendant never receives the letter with the new court date or ignores it. Sometime after a year post-arrest the Defendant gets picked up for a new crime or traffic matter or some other random police contact. Once a year has passed since the crime was committed and the crime is filed as a misdemeanor the speedy trial right for misdemeanors in California arises. Both the Federal Constitution and the California Constitution play a role. Because more then a year has passed, it is presumed that the Defendant has suffered prejudice. As such, the burden shifts to the Prosecutor to justify the delay. The court at that point considers the reason for the delay and also weighs the factors laid out in Barker v. Wingo, (1972) 407 U.S. 514, 532, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101, 118: (i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired. As a practical matter on misdemeanors, it is rare when the Prosecution has done more then send a letter to the last known address. As such, if more then a year has passed on a misdemeanor, speedy trial motions are usually granted depending on the jurisdiction.

Felony cases are more difficult to win on the speedy trial issue. Part of this is because more time must pass as the minimum statute of limitation on a felony is at least three years or longer as opposed to a misdemeanor where allegations can only be brought within one year. People v. Martinez (2000) 94 Cal Rptr.2d 381 is generally considered the controlling California case on speedy trial issues for felonies. Felonies themselves must be split into two different types for speedy trial consideration.

1. Pre-preliminary Hearing Cases: In these felony cases because the case does not end in a trial only a hearing the Federal Constitutional safeguards are not covered. Thus, there is no presumed prejudice, actual prejudice must be shown and the Wingo, factors are considered.
2. Post- Pre-liminary hearing cases: The rationale for Martinez and Serna, would seem to indicate that prejudice is presumed for felonies post-preliminary hearing since the Federal standard would apply, however, the precedent is unclear here. Also some cases have held that actual prejudice will only be considered after trial which seems to indicate there is no presumed prejudice.

Will Bruzzo has managed to get many cases dismissed on the basis of a violation of the speedy trial right.

Here are some of the new laws for 2012 listed by the Los Angeles Times:

• Defendants extradited to California will have an additional $100,000.00 added to their bail.
• Importation and production of beers that have caffeine as an ingredient are banned.
• Schools can suspend a student for cyber-bullying.
• An individual younger then 18 cannot be supplied with a drug containing dextromethorphan, which is used to reduce coughing.
• Smuggling cellular phones into state prisons is a crime, and additional prison time can be given to inmates with cellular phones.
• A $25,000 fine will be imposed for child prostitution convictions.
• Selling live animals on sidewalks, parking lots or streets is a crime.

In California, the penal code allows for possible capital punishment for treason against the state of California, perjury causing execution of an innocent person, and murder in the first degree, with special circumstances.

According to the director of the California’s poison control system, there were six cases reported in this state. In one of the six cases the person had to be treated for acute psychosis. These products are found easily on the internet which prompted Florida and Louisiana to implement an emergency ban on the products.

Because the student is a minor (under age 18) his case will be prosecuted in the juvenile justice system. On some occasions criminal cases involving juveniles may be prosecuted in the adult system, however, that is generally only the case in very serious matters. While this crime is serious because one bullet passed through two students, it appears to have been accidental in nature and will probably remain in the juvenile system. As a juvenile the student could face up to 6 years at the California youth authority or remain incarcerated until he is 21 years of age. See, California Penal Code Section 246.3 and Welfare and Institutions Code Section 602.

However, now it appears there may be no one qualified to file an appeal since whoever does so must demonstrate they will experience some loss from the lower court decision. Normally, the Office of the California State Attorney General will bring the appeal on behalf of the voters but in this case both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown believe the federal court decision finding the ban unconstitutional is valid and will not appeal. Meanwhile supporters of the ban may be unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any loss except in a very general sense which will probably not be enough. So, while Proposition 8 supporters were hoping for a show down in the U.S. Supreme court and confident of an outcome favorable to them given the conservative bent of that court, it appears now they may never get the chance.

Legal Updates by the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636

Domestic violence is frequently in the news, recently the movie The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo chronicled the affects of domestic violence, and for the past 30 years The Take Back the Night Foundation has existed to end domestic violence. Each incident has its own set of facts, but what if the violence is mutual? Read what one client says:

“I was arrested for Domestic Violence under Penal Code Section 273.5(a) as a felony for an incident that occurred with my spouse in Orange County, California. My bail was set at $50,000.00. For the crime I was arrested for I faced a maximum of three years in prison. After I bailed out of jail I went to speak to Attorney William Bruzzo whom I understood to be a very effective attorney and very familiar with the judges and the District Attorneys in Orange County. Mr. Bruzzo told me that he would start working on my case even before my court date and that he would try to persuade the District Attorney NOT TO FILE the case against me which would mean there would never actually be a court case. Mr. Bruzzo told me it appeared that at a minimum both parties had engaged equally in the physical altercation. He also told me that the law says if both parties engage in mutual combat then the case can be dismissed. He made several phone calls to the District Attorney and then submitted a letter to the District Attorney which provided additional information about the incident that was helpful to me. Two days after I hired Mr. Bruzzo and before I even had to appear in court he informed me that the District Attorney had REJECTED the case and decided not to file against me. I NEVER HAD TO APPEAR IN COURT AND I HAVE NO CONVICTION. I am very grateful to Mr. Bruzzo for his efforts and I would enthusiastically recommend him for an Domestic Violence or Criminal matter.” ~~ CL 05/2010

“I was arrested for a violation of Penal Code Sections 12025(a) (1) [Carrying a Concealed Weapon in a Vehicle], 12031(a) [Carrying a Loaded Weapon in a Vehicle] and 538(b) (2) [impersonating an officer]. I had several weapons in my vehicle with ammunition-most of my weapons were properly stored in my vehicle but a few were not. All the weapons pertain to my being in the private security business. I also had other very expensive items that I needed for my job. I hired Attorney William W. Bruzzo to represent me as he came highly recommended as an Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney very familiar with the District Attorneys and Judges in Orange County. If I suffered a conviction or lost my equipment I would be unable to work. Mr. Bruzzo helped me get my equipment back from the police. He also spoke with the District Attorney in an attempt to persuade them not to file the case against me since I was a legitimate private security individual. In the end Mr. Bruzzo persuaded the District Attorney NOT TO FILE THE CASE. I NEVER HAD TO GO TO COURT AND I NEVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT A CONVICTION. I feel strongly that if I had not hired Mr. Bruzzo the result would have been much different. As such I highly recommend Mr. Bruzzo for any criminal law matter.” ~~ PB, May 14, 2010

State correction officials say that 7 out of 10 parolees in California end up back in prison within three years of their release. People are then left to wonder just what impact the early release of prisoners will have on their community. Officials are aiming to reduce the prison population by 6,500 inmates by the end of this year through an early-release program which allows prisoners to reduce their time through work and good-behavior credits. For Orange County, this means over 300 state prison inmates will likely be released and return to their hometown of Orange County.

The early-release program is one of the measures adopted by state legislators to help reduce the budget deficit. However, law enforcement officials are worried that in this tough economy of few jobs and rehabilitative programs, there will be little options available for the inmates who are released. New state guidelines are also changing the way prisoners will be monitored after their release—it will go from supervised to unsupervised parole.

The new parole system will allow resources to go where most needed, that is, to the most violent parolees who are also the most likely to commit new crimes. The early releases and changes to the parole system are expected to save the state around half a billion dollars in 2010.

In an effort to curb state spending and move toward greater efficiency in inmate healthcare, Gov. Schwarzenegger is proposing to have the University of California provide medical attention to state inmates. This move would could save California $300 billion this year alone according to the Los Angeles Times article. In order to reduce spending the new system would include electronic record keeping that can be easily accessed by doctors, buying medicines in bulk, and using video communication between doctors and inmate patients. The state would no longer send inmates to community hospitals instead the prisons would send their inmates to hospitals designated under the plan. Some details still have to be worked out with worker’s unions for current employees that might have to be let go or work within the new system. Also, any concerns lawmakers or federal judges may have still need to be considered. Oversight of the prison healthcare service would be removed from federal judges and taken on by the University of California. A state agency comprised of governor appointees, federal court representatives, and correctional administrators would check the UC and make sure care and spending are appropriate.

Richard A. Econ of Lake Forest, Orange County, California was arrested on charges of burglary (California Penal Code Section 459-460)when he walked into Wal-Mart and tried to buy $100 worth of gift cards with counterfeit bills. The Wal-Mart clerk became suspicious after seeing the money, then called the store manager. The clerk then asked to look at Econ’s license in order to detain him while they checked out the money. When it was taking too long, Econ fled the store. Within minutes of a brief foot pursuit, deputies had Econ in custody. The U.S. Secret Service will be conducting further investigations to determine if counterfeit charges apply.