From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Crutchfield

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Jose Division
Jun 5, 2015
CR-14-00051 RMW (N.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2015)

Opinion

          STEVEN G. KALAR Federal Public Defender, VARELL L. FULLER, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Counsel for Defendant CRUTCHFIELD

          JAY RORTY, Counsel for defendant Toliver.


          STIPULATION AND [] ORDER CONTINUING JUNE 8, 2015 STATUS HEARING TO JULY 20, 2015, FOR CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING

          RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge.

         STIPULATION

         Defendants Justin Crutchfield and Demontae Toliver, by and through their respective counsel, and the United States, by and through Assistant United States Attorney Amie Rooney, hereby stipulate that, with the Court's approval, the court continue status hearing set for Monday, June 8, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., to July 20, 2015, and set this matter for a change of plea hearing to be held at that time.

         The reason for the requested continuance is the parties request additional time to finalize the terms of a disposition in this matter. Additionally, counsel for Mr. Toliver will be in trial on June 8, 2015, the date now set for a further status hearing in this matter, and thereafter will be out of the country and unavailable until July 13, 2015. The parties therefore respectfully requests a continuance and exclusion of time based on the government and both defense counsel's need to effectively prepare and continuity of counsel.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

         [] ORDER ________

         GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, upon stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the status hearing currently set for June 8, 2015, shall be continued to July 20, 2015, for a change of plea hearing.

         THE COURT FINDS that failing to exclude the time between June 8, 2015, July 20, 2015, would unreasonably deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and deny Mr. Toliver continuity of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) and (h)(7)(B)(iv).

         THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the ends of justice served by excluding the time between June 8, 2015, and July 20, 2015, from computation under the Speedy Trial Act outweigh the interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

         THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time between June 8, 2015, and July 20, 2015, shall be excluded from computation under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), (B)(iv), and (h)(7)(B)(iv).

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Crutchfield

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Jose Division
Jun 5, 2015
CR-14-00051 RMW (N.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Crutchfield

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JUSTIN EVERETT CRUTCHFIELD and…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Jose Division

Date published: Jun 5, 2015

Citations

CR-14-00051 RMW (N.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2015)