Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
PROCEEDINGS in mandate after request for disposition under the agreement on detainers. No. JCF16618
McINTYRE, J.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 30, 2005, the People charged Johnathan M. Walker with vehicle theft, receiving stolen property and possession of a controlled substance. (We take judicial notice of Imperial County Superior Court file No. JCF16618.) Walker entered a negotiated plea to vehicle theft on October 6, 2005, and the remaining charges were dismissed. The court set sentencing for November 3, 2005. Walker was not sentenced on that date because the probation department did not provide a report. The State of Nevada extradited Walker on November 14, 2005.
Over the ensuing months Walker was in and out of custody in California and Nevada but he was never sentenced in this matter. In February 2006 Walker sent an "Inmate Request Final Disposition for Untried Charges or Indictments" to the court from the Northern Nevada Correctional Center. No action was taken on the request. On January 29, 2007, Nevada authorities advised Walker that Imperial County had lodged a felony detainer for his failure to appear on the felony vehicle theft charge. Walker executed the "Inmate's Notice of Place of Imprisonment and Request for Disposition of Indictments, Informations or Complaints" on February 6, 2007. He was not extradited to California and again no disposition occurred.
On April 1, 2008, Walker petitioned in this court claiming he served the Imperial County Superior Court and district attorney around December 19, 2007, with a motion to dismiss the charges under Penal Code section 1389 for failure to act within 180 days. We asked the People for an informal response to the petition. The People responded: "After researching our records, it appears that [Walker] is correct in that he has not been brought to trial within the time period mandated by Penal Code [section] 1389 after having filed a timely request pursuant to that section; therefore, he is entitled to a dismissal with prejudice. ([Pen.] Code[,] § 1389, [subd.] (d).) The People have no objection to the issuance of a writ of mandate as requested by [Walker]."
In light of the People's concession that it did not timely act under the agreement on detainers (Pen. Code, § 1389 et seq.) to dispose of the felony vehicle theft charges against Walker, we conclude no useful purpose could reasonably be served by issuance of an order to show cause or plenary consideration of the matter. A peremptory writ in the first instance is proper. (Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35; see also People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 740, fn. 7.)
DISPOSITION
Let a writ of mandate issue directing the superior court to order case No. JCF16618 dismissed with prejudice. This opinion is final immediately as to this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264, subd. (b)(3).)
WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J., McDONALD, J.