WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County Superior Court judge on Wednesday denied a motion to dismiss criminal charges after a four-year delay, ruling the accused’s speedy trial and due process rights were not violated and finding insufficient prejudice to justify dismissal.
During a hearing in Department 8, Judge Daniel P. Maguire rejected the defense motion despite acknowledging a presumption of prejudice from the passage of time, citing the seriousness of the charges and the circumstances surrounding the delay.
According to court records, the accused was charged in two current active cases with driving on a suspended license and minor infractions, including speeding and improper lane use. Prior offenses included unlicensed driving, driving under the influence, and probation violations.
Defense Attorney Richard Lansburgh argued the court has discretion to govern the setting of cases for trial through timely proceedings and to ensure fairness and the integrity of the system, noting that a four-year delay was too long.
Lansburgh continued that the violation was partly the government’s fault because the bench warrant was issued in 2021. He said the accused is unable to defend himself because the delay was excessive.
He added that the accused never attempted to hide from police, except out of fear of immigration enforcement, emphasizing that undocumented individuals are often fearful of ICE.
As a result, Lansburgh explained that the accused purposefully “lay low” because of ICE, but always lived at the same address for several years.
He concluded by saying there had been prejudice in a case that could have been resolved earlier.
The judge asked the defense whether it was the accused’s responsibility to appear in court. Lansburgh replied, “The obligation is greater on the government,” arguing the delay was unjustified.
Deputy District Attorney Farouq “Vince” Ghazzawi said the defense argument was “contradictory” in asserting the accused “laid low” while also claiming prejudice, arguing the accused was aware of the allegations but chose not to come to court.
Lansburgh responded that “the duty to perform judicial functions is on the government.”
The judge acknowledged a presumption of prejudice due to the passage of time, but found the four-year delay was not excessive and moderately favored the prosecution.
The judge also noted the accused asserted his speedy trial right only after the case resumed, and referenced the seriousness of the charges, which carry approximately 180 days of jail time. The motion was denied.
The court previously imposed a 175-day jail sentence that was stayed, and the accused was placed on five years of probation, with 10 days of jail time, in the prior driving under the influence case.
The matter is set for an admit-or-deny violation of probation hearing on May 20.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
