From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. McCree

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Oct 19, 2015
2:12-CR-279 TLN (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015)

Opinion

          LAW OFFICE OF TODD D. LERAS, Todd D. Leras, Sacramento, California, Attorney for Defendant, MICHAEL McCREE.


          STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

          TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

         This matter is presently set for a status conference before the Court on October 22, 2015. The parties to this action, Plaintiff United States of America by and through Assistant United States Attorney Todd A. Pickles, and Defendant Michael McCree by and through his attorney Todd D. Leras, stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for a status conference on October 22, 2015.

2. By this stipulation, Defendant now moves to continue the status conference to October 29, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between October 22, 2015 and October 29, 2015, under Local Code T-4. The United States does not oppose this request.

3. The Court appointed Defendant's present counsel to replace his original attorney at a hearing on May 15, 2015. The government subsequently provided new counsel with discovery consisting of approximately 2600 pages of various reports and other materials. Defense counsel continues to review this discovery, along with other materials, and consult with Defendant about them.

4. Replacement counsel has ordered and received a transcript of a competency hearing held prior to his appointment on April 30, 2015. He has also shared its contents with the prosecutor assigned to this case. Review of this transcript reveals that the Court denied a defense request for appointment of a second competency evaluation. The Court did, however, indicate that it would allow a limited evidentiary hearing regarding the written report prepared by the court-appointed mental health professional assigned to evaluate defendant's competency. Defendant, through his counsel, is requesting the opportunity to conduct such a hearing.

5. Defendant has informed his counsel that this mother recently passed away. Given that circumstance, defense counsel requires additional time to review relevant documents and reports with Defendant before scheduling an evidentiary hearing.

6. Counsel for Defendant believes that failure to grant additional time as requested would deny him the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

7. Based on the above-stated facts, the parties jointly request that the Court find that the ends of justice served by continuing the case as requested outweigh the best interest of the public and the Defendant in a trial within the time prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.

8. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of October 22, 2015 to October 29, 2015, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), and (B) (iv) [Local Code T-4] because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at Defendant's request on the basis that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial.

9. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods are excludable from the period within which a trial must commence.

         Assistant U.S. Attorney Todd Pickles has reviewed this proposed order and authorized Todd Leras to sign it on his behalf.

          ORDER

         BASED ON THE REPRESENTATIONS AND STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, it is hereby ordered that the status conference in this matter scheduled for October 22, 2015, is vacated. A new status conference is scheduled for October 29, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. The Court further finds, based on the representations of the parties and Defendant's request, that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Time shall be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) and Local Code T-4, to allow necessary attorney preparation taking into consideration the exercise of due diligence for the period from October 22, 2015, up to and including October 29, 2015.


Summaries of

United States v. McCree

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Oct 19, 2015
2:12-CR-279 TLN (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. McCree

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL McCREE, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 19, 2015

Citations

2:12-CR-279 TLN (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015)