Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Hicks, 2:17-CR-0027 TLN. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190122a93 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 18, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record Assistant United States Attorney JASON HITT, and the Defendant, TIQUON HICKS, by and through his counsel of record TASHA CHALFANT, hereby stipulate and request that the Court make the following findings and Order as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status confere
More

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER

STIPULATION

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record Assistant United States Attorney JASON HITT, and the Defendant, TIQUON HICKS, by and through his counsel of record TASHA CHALFANT, hereby stipulate and request that the Court make the following findings and Order as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on January 24, 2019.

2. By this stipulation, the defendant now moves to continue the status conference until February 21, 2019, and to exclude time between January 24, 2019, and February 21, 2019, under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:

a. The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes approximately 155 plus pages of investigative reports in electronic form and many photographs. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to previous counsel, Jeff Staniels, and/or made available for inspection and copying.

b. Counsel for the defendant desires additional time to review the discovery, consult with her client, discuss potential resolution, and to explain the consequences and guidelines. New laws were implemented in January 2019, which may affect my client. Counsel for the defendant substituted in for the previous attorney, Jeff Staniels, when he retired from the practice of law. Therefore, counsel for the defendant needs additional time to develop the case, conduct investigation and meet with her client for the above stated reasons. Additional time is also required to analyze the defendant's prior court files in order to assess his criminal history category and his estimated guidelines calculations.

c. Counsel for the defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny her the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

d. The government does not object to the continuance.

e. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by continuing the case as requested outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.

f. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of January 24, 2019, to February 21, 2019, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendant's request on the basis of the Court's finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

4. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods are excludable from the period within which a trial must commence.

All counsel has reviewed this proposed order and authorized Tasha Chalfant to sign it on their behalf.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

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 stipulation of the parties and the recitation of facts contained therein, the Court finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

The Court orders that the time from the date of the parties' stipulation, January 24, 2019, to and including February 21, 2019, status conference hearing date shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case 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 (reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare). It is further ordered that the presently set January 24, 2019, status conference shall be continued to February 21, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.

IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer