From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Harris

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 5, 2013
2:12-CR-00326-MCE (E.D. Cal. Sep. 5, 2013)

Opinion

          Michael E. Hansen, [SBN 191737] Attorney-at-Law, Sacramento, CA, Attorney for Defendant JOHN HARRIS

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney

          TODD PICKLES, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff


          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE/CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING, AND TO EXCLUDE TIME PURSUANT TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

          MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, Matthew Morris, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for plaintiff, and Michael E. Hansen, attorney for defendant John Harris, that the previously-scheduled status conference of plea hearing date of September 5, 2013, be vacated and the matter set for status conference on October 24, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

         This continuance is requested to allow the Bureau of Prisons to perform a psychiatric or psychological examination of defendant John Harris before the hearing, pursuant to section 4241(b), and prepare a report containing those matters required under 18 USC section 4247(c).

         The Government concurs with this request.

         The parties agree and stipulate the time from the date of this stipulation, September 2, 2013, until the Court rules on defendant John Harris' competency to stand trial shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial act pursuant to 18 USC section 3161(h)(1)(A), and 18 USC sections 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), and Local Codes A (mental competency determination) and T4 (defense preparation). Further defendant John Harris and the United States stipulate and agree that the Court shall find the ends of justice in granting the continuance in defendant's trial outweigh the best interests of the defendant and the public in a speedy trial.

         Accordingly, the parties respectfully request the Court adopt this proposed stipulation.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

          ORDER

         The Court, having received, read, and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Based on the stipulation of the parties and the recitation of facts contained therein, the Court finds that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in 18 U.S.C. section 3161. In addition, the Court specifically finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel to this stipulation reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

         The Court orders that the status conference presently set for September 5, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., shall be vacated. The Court further orders that time from the date of the parties' stipulation, September 2, 2013, and continuing until the Court rules on defendant's competency to stand trial shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 USC section 3161(h)(1)(A), and 18 USC sections 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), and Local Codes A (mental competency determination) and T4 (defense preparation). The Court finds that the ends of justice in granting the continuance in defendant's trial outweigh the best interests of the defendant and the public in a speedy trial.

         It is further ordered that the September 5, 2013, status conference/change of plea hearing shall be continued until October 24, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Harris

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 5, 2013
2:12-CR-00326-MCE (E.D. Cal. Sep. 5, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Harris

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN HARRIS, Defendant.

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

Date published: Sep 5, 2013

Citations

2:12-CR-00326-MCE (E.D. Cal. Sep. 5, 2013)