DeepInfo.com: Serna Court Decisions: Stale Warrants/Speedy Trial

DeepInfo.com: What the Media Won't Tell You &
the Government Doesn't Want You to Know.

Serna Court Decisions: Stale Warrants/Speedy Trial

Serna v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 239
Calif v Martinez 13-Aug-97 Filed 8/12/97. Lost - unless a defendant asserts a claim of denial of a speedy trial before trial that claim is waived - Court may postpone hearing of claim to posttrial
Calif. v. Martinez, D025750 29-Sep-97 Filed 8/12/97
Calif v. GUY SNOOK 21-Mar-97 - won(part) - speedy trial
WASHINGTON V. SANTA MONICA 28-Feb-97 - won - stopped for race
Illinois v. Rayford Old Police Records- "If a police officer makes warrantless search he must have probable cause. Probable cause for a warrantless search is established when the officer reasonably believes that he is faced with a situation more serious than a minor traffic violation. People v. Lawrence, 174 Ill. App. 3d 818, 529 N.E.2d 63 (1988). If the warrantless search is conducted pursuant to a stale warrant, i.e., where the police fail to update their warrant records, any evidence resulting from the search must be suppressed. In other words, the State may not rely on an inactive warrant to demonstrate probable cause to arrest a defendant and search his vehicle. People v. Sullivan, 243 Ill. App. 3d 830, 612 N.E.2d 1000 (1993)."
State-Citizen.org's Files: Index Files/Briefs

law.emory.edu:
Kelly v. Serna 12-Jul-96 US Ct of Appl - Civil Suit Denied Summary
Gallegos v City of Co Springs 29-May-97 FILED US Ct - arrested & hit by car- lost case
United States v. Jerez&Solis 28-Feb-97 US Ct - won - appealed 4 suppression drug evidence
United States v. Rodrigue 26-Oct-95 US Ct - lost- appealed legality of arrest & search
Brock v. Carroll 10-Apr-97 Filed: March 19, 1997. US Ct - lost - in prison, pipe seized
19 Mechanics v Alberquerque22-Feb-96 US Ct-drug test-dismissed=city changed policy
crtxvc.html- Handling a Traffic Ticket 28-Nov-96 Excerpts from a T 42 Brief
Summaries 4 Yr = APPEALS - TRANSCRIPT PART 03-Sep-97 CALJIC 3.18
Evidence: Charts & Summaries? 02-Aug-96 EVIDENCE (CHARTS AND SUMMARIES?)
Other .edu's:
No Title 10-Oct-94 ABBELL, Michael lawyer for Cali Cartel
US v Deberry - Docket No. 95-2232 18-Jul-97 - lost - seized his gun w/ no prob cause 4 srch

Misc Other:
Bar Journal July/August 9 09-Sep-97 State Constitution v Federalist positions
ACLU News Releases 11-Jul-97
gone? 27.New Mexico State Agency P 24-Mar-97 New Mexico State Agency Ph
gone? 31.The Officer Down Memorial 13-Sep-97 Patrolman Shirley Denise W
GONE? 42.Untitled 03-Sep-97 nbsp; AMSC MEDALLION. ARMY
DefenseLINK Photos 03-Oct-97 Photos by Dept Of Defense
Ford Foundation REPORT: W 30-Sep-97 Serna v Portales = Bilingual Education = right
Use of Force Policy: ATF, DEA, FBI
San Diego Procedural Rules of Court
Findings of Overreaction at Ruby Ridge
White v. Missourino evidentiary hearing will be required unless the motion meets three requirements: "(1) the motion must allege facts, not conclusions, warranting relief; (2) the facts alleged must raise matters not refuted by the files and records in the case; and (3) the matters complained of must have resulted in prejudice to the movant." State v. Starks, 856 S.W.2d 334, 336 (Mo. banc 1993). Thus, to obtain an evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the movant must allege facts, not refuted by the record, showing (1) that counsel's performance did not conform to the degree of skill, care, and diligence of a reasonably competent attorney, and (2) that he was thereby prejudiced. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 60 (1985); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Because none of White's allegations satisfy this standard, his motion was properly overruled without an evidentiary hearing.
New 1996 Calif Legislation
Maryland 1996 Digest of Crim Law
NY v. SigismundiRelying on our decision in People v Bolden (81 NY2d 146), the People had an obligation to exercise diligence in executing the bench warrant
NY v bolden NY definitions of Absent& Unavailable: "A defendant must be considered absent whenever his location is unknown and he is attempting to avoid apprehension or prosecution, or his location cannot be determined by due diligence. A defendant must be considered unavailable whenever his location is known but his presence for trial cannot be obtained by due diligence (emphasis supplied).