NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — An Orange County Superior Court judge granted a prosecution request Friday to postpone a preliminary hearing in a two-year-old criminal case after the Sheriff’s Department mistakenly accepted a subpoena for an officer who was on vacation, despite defense objections that the error did not constitute good cause for another delay.
During proceedings at the Harbor Justice Center in Newport Beach, Judge Antony Ufland granted the continuance after Deputy District Attorney Samantha Shafia explained that the subpoenaed officer was unavailable because of a scheduling error within the Sheriff’s Department.
The prosecution submitted a motion under California Penal Code section 1050 shortly before the scheduled hearing, requesting a continuance because the officer would not be present to testify.
According to Shafia, the Sheriff’s Department approved the officer’s vacation request Sept. 24, two days before accepting a subpoena requiring the officer’s appearance at Friday’s preliminary hearing.
Shafia explained that the subpoena had been automatically approved because Fridays were considered the officer’s “typical and normal day off.”
The prosecution said it had not received a rejected subpoena and learned of the scheduling conflict only after the Sheriff’s Department notified the District Attorney’s Office at approximately 1 p.m. Friday, about 30 minutes before the scheduled court session.
The officer was expected to return from vacation Nov. 9.
Deputy Public Defender Sharon Tekolian strongly opposed the continuance, arguing that the Sheriff’s Department had ample opportunity to identify and correct the scheduling conflict before the hearing.
Tekolian told the court there was “zero good cause” to postpone the proceedings, emphasizing that the preliminary hearing had been scheduled approximately 70 days earlier.
She characterized the department’s failure to identify the conflict as “frankly unacceptable,” noting that the hearing date had been established in August.
Tekolian also challenged the prosecution’s reliance on the officer’s regular day off as justification for the delay, arguing that there was “no case law” supporting such an excuse as good cause for a continuance.
The defense maintained that the problem was foreseeable because the officer’s vacation had been approved before the subpoena was accepted.
Tekolian argued that the Sheriff’s Department should have recognized the conflict when processing the subpoena rather than waiting until the day of the hearing to notify prosecutors.
Ufland acknowledged problems with the explanation offered for the officer’s absence, stating that the justification involving the officer’s regular day off “is not a good one.”
Nevertheless, the judge found good cause to continue the hearing, citing the Sheriff’s Department’s notification to the prosecution and his determination that the case remained within a reasonable time frame.
Tekolian continued to object, arguing that the situation was “not a last-minute situation” because the scheduling conflict could have been identified well before the hearing.
Despite the defense’s objections, Ufland declined to reconsider his finding.
The judge then directed the defense to identify a suitable date for the continued preliminary hearing.
Tekolian questioned whether the prosecution would be required to issue new subpoenas to witnesses because of the postponement.
Ufland responded that arranging the necessary subpoenas was not a matter for the defense or the court to resolve and reiterated his decision to continue the proceedings rather than dismiss the case.
After consulting with colleagues and the accused, Tekolian requested that the hearing be rescheduled for Nov. 9.
The court granted the request and set the new hearing date.
Following the scheduling decision, Shafia raised an additional issue for the record, stating that the accused had not appeared at the courthouse for the original 8:30 a.m. call time and instead arrived after 11 a.m.
Ufland rejected the suggestion that the accused’s late arrival was relevant to the dispute over the missing officer, describing the two issues as “debating apples and oranges.”
The judge indicated that the accused’s late arrival did not affect his decision regarding the continuance.
The preliminary hearing was rescheduled for Nov. 9 after Ufland found good cause for the officer’s absence, despite acknowledging shortcomings in the Sheriff’s Department’s explanation and the defense’s objections to delaying a case that had already been pending for approximately two years.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to 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.
