Opinion
22cr1647-TWR
09-15-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANGELICA CRYSTAL QUINTERO, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE MOTION HEARING/ TRIAL SETTING AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
HON. TODD W. ROBINSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Upon the joint motion of the parties (ECF No. 25), and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the parties' joint motion to continue the Motion Hearing/Trial Setting and GRANTS the parties' joint motion to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Accordingly, the Motion Hearing/Trial Setting set for September 16, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. is vacated and continued to October 28, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. The Court makes the following factual findings, which apply to the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act.
Taking into account the exercise of due diligence by counsel and the recently produced discovery and revised plea agreement, the Court finds that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and the trial itself within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act. Furthermore, the failure to grant the requested continuance would deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation and would result in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the Court finds that time is excluded under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B) from the date of this order to the new Motion Hearing/Trial Setting scheduled for October 28, 2022, and further finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See United States v. Tanh Huu Lam, 251 F.3d 852, 858 (9th Cir.), as amended on denial of reh'g and reh'g en banc sub nom. United States v. Lam, 262 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[D]eclin[ing] to permit a defendant's interest in a speedy trial to override his attorney's legitimate assessment of the complexity of a case and his corresponding need to prepare” and further noting that “[t]o hold otherwise would risk setting up an irreconcilable conflict with a defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel[.]”).
SO ORDERED.