AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE HEARING, SETTING TRIAL AND TRIAL CONFIRMATION HEARING DATES, AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between plaintiff United States of America, on the one hand, and defendant Nemessis Rosendo Venegas, on the other hand, through their respective attorneys, that:
(1) the presently set November 19, 2015, status conference hearing shall be continued to August 4, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., which date shall serve as a trial confirmation hearing;
(2) the trial in this case shall be set for October 17, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.;
(3) time from the date of the parties' stipulation, November 16, 2015, through, and including, the trial date of October 17, 2016, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T4, for the reasons set forth below.
Defense counsel, Edward Robinson, Esq., has the following trial dates set in other cases where he is serving as counsel:
(1) United States v. Boyd, No. CR 15-00235, December 8, 2015, a 2-week jury trial in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, involving alleged honest services fraud;
(2) United States v. Merino, No. CR 14-00329, March 8, 2016, a 2-week jury trial in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, involving an alleged conspiracy to commit health care fraud;
(3) United States v. Sorrentino, No. CR 15-00206, March 22, 2016, a 1-week jury trial in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, involving an alleged conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance;
(4) United States v. Yahalom, No. CR 12-1205, May 10, 2015, 1-week jury in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, involving an alleged tax evasion case.
The undersigned prosecutor, Assistant United States Attorney Samuel Wong, has the following trial dates set in other cases where he is serving as counsel:
(1) United States v. Watkins, No. 2:14-CR-112 TLN, January 19, 2016, an approximate 1-week trial involving an alleged assault with a deadly or dangerous weapon on a federal officer;
(2) United States v. Rodriguez, Olivera and Tapia, No. 2:11-CR-112 449 KJM, February 22, 2016, an approximate 1-week trial involving an alleged conspiracy to manufacture at least 1,000 or more marijuana plants.
(3) United States v. Mora, Preacher, and Puffer, No. 2:15-CR-166 KJM, March 28, 2016, an approximate 1-week trial involving an alleged conspiracy and assault by prison inmates on another prison inmate.
(4) United States v. Hemsley and Gilmore, No. 2:13-CR-300 GEB, April 12, 2016, an approximate 1-week trial involving an alleged conspiracy to manufacture at least 100 or more marijuana plants.
(5) United States v. Madriz, No. 2:13-CR-185 TLN, April 25, 2016, an approximate 1-week trial involving methamphetamine and firearms charges.
In regard to the respective trials assigned to Mr. Robinson and AUSA Wong, both attorneys will need the time between now and his first trial in the other cases described above to prepare for that trial, and will need the time between the next trial to prepare for the upcoming next trial in other cases. Consequently, between the trial schedules of defense counsel and the prosecutor, one or the other attorney will be unavailable to prepare for and handle the trial of this case until approximately June 15, 2016. Therefore, both Venegas and the United States request that the Court continue the trial in this case and exclude the time between now and June 15, 2016, for continuity of defense and prosecution counsel within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T4.
In addition, both parties agree that the Court should exclude time from the present date until the proposed October 17, 2016, trial date to allow defense counsel time to prepare his client's defense. Specifically, in the event that this case proceeds to trial, the defense team desires to conduct an on-site investigation of the marijuana garden involved in this case to aid in Venegas' defense. Of particular interest is the area from which Venegas allegedly fled to the area where he was arrested and a firearm was found. Both parties believe that such an inspection would be difficult and dangerous now due to the wet/rainy/snow conditions that exist at this time of year and will continue until after the rainy/snow season ends. However, even after the conclusion of the rainy/snow season, the parties believe that it will be dangerous for the defense team to conduct its on-site inspection at that time as there is a substantial risk that once the rainy/snow season ends, new marijuana growers will re-enter, re-use, and occupy the site that the defense team desires to investigate. Indeed, it is common that marijuana garden sites are used by marijuana growers on a repeated annual basis even if the marijuana garden site has been investigated and eradicated by law enforcement in prior years. Both parties believe that counsel should wait as long as possible into October 2016, to engage in its on-site inspection. The parties stipulate and agree that the Court shall find that the failure to grant the requested continuance in this case until October 17, 2016, would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
The parties advise the Court that defendant Venegas is presently out of custody pending trial.
Consequently, the parties also stipulate and agree that the Court find the ends of justice served by the granting of such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and defendant Venegas in a speedy trial and respectfully request that the Court exclude time between now and the October 17, 2016, trial date pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T4.
ORDER
The Court, having received, read, and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order.
Based on the representations of both counsel and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court hereby finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case for the time periods referenced in their stipulation would deny: (1) counsel for defendant Nemessis Rosendo Venegas reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence; and (2) the respective parties continuity of counsel. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and Venegas in a speedy trial. It is ORDERED that time beginning from the parties' stipulation on November 16, 2015, up to, and including, the October 17, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., trial shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T4, to allow defense counsel for Venegas reasonable time to prepare and for continuity of counsel for the respective parties.
It is further ORDERED that the presently set November 19, 2015, status conference shall be continued to August 4, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. for a trial confirmation hearing, and the trial of this case shall commence on October 17, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.
