Parties and Attorneys
PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ
Division SF
Division SF
Case Number S223129
| Party | Attorney |
|---|---|
| The People : Plaintiff and Respondent | Rene A. Chacon Office of the Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 |
| Adam Sergio Rodriguez : Defendant and Appellant 280 North Cragmont Avenue San Jose, CA 95127 | Victoria Hobel Schultz Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1145 Mountain View, CA 94042 Jonathan E. Berger Attorney at Law 1415 Fulton Road, Suite 205-170 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 |
Case Summary
Supreme Court Case:
S223129
Court of Appeal Case(s):
Sixth Appellate District
H038588
H038588
Case Caption:
PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ
Case Category:
Review - Criminal Appeal
Start Date:
12/15/2014
Case Status:
closed; remittitur issued
Issues:
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal modified and affirmed a judgment of conviction of a criminal offense. This case presents the following issue: When the prosecution refiled charges after defendant's motion to suppress evidence was granted and the case was dismissed, did the trial court err in refusing to assign a subsequent suppression motion to "the same judge who granted the [prior] motion" in accordance with Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (p), on the ground the prior judge was not "available" to hear the motion when he was then sitting in a different courthouse?
Disposition Date:
08/22/2016
Case Citation:
none
NOTE: The statement of the issues is intended simply to inform the public and the press of the general subject matter of the case. The description set out above does not necessarily reflect the view of the court, or define the specific issues that will be addressed by the court.
Cross Referenced Cases:
No Cross Referenced Cases Found
Docket (Register of Actions)
PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ
Division SF
Division SF
Case Number S223129
| Date | Description | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 12/15/2014 | Petition for review filed | Defendant and Appellant: Adam Sergio Rodriguez Attorney: Victoria Hobel Schultz |
| 02/04/2015 | Time extended to grant or deny review | The time for granting or denying review in the above-entitled matter is hereby extended to and including March 13, 2015, or the date upon which review is either granted or denied. |
| 03/11/2015 | Petition for review granted | Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan, Liu, Cuéllar and Kruger, JJ. |
| 03/11/2015 | Record requested | |
| 03/17/2015 | Received Court of Appeal record | one file folder/briefs/transcripts/two accordion folders |
| 03/24/2015 | Counsel appointment order filed | Upon request of appellant for appointment of counsel, Jonathan Berger is hereby appointed to represent appellant on the appeal now pending in this court. Appellant's brief on the merits must be served and filed on or before thirty (30) days from the date of this order. |
| 03/25/2015 | Issues ordered limited | The issues to be briefed and argued in the above-entitled case are as follows: (1) Does Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (p) vest the trial court with discretion to determine whether the judge who heard a defendant's original motion to suppress is "available" to hear a subsequent motion, and if so, what considerations should guide the trial court in exercising that discretion? (2) Did the trial court err in concluding that the original judge was "unavailable" to hear a renewed motion to suppress within the meaning of Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (p)? |
| 04/01/2015 | Note: Mail returned (unable to forward) | Jonathan E. Berger - envelope indicates return to sender/undeliverable. |
| 04/06/2015 | Note: Mail returned (unable to forward) | Jonathan Berger - envelope indicates return to sender/not deliverable as addressed - unable to forward. |
| 04/14/2015 | Request for extension of time filed | by Jonathan E. Berger, counsel for appellant, requesting an extension to May 25, 2015. |
| 04/16/2015 | Extension of time granted | On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the Opening Brief on the Merits is extended to and including May 25, 2015. |
| 05/21/2015 | Request for extension of time filed | appellant requesting extension until June 24, 2015 to file opening brief on the merits. by Jonathan E. Berger, counsel |
| 05/27/2015 | Extension of time granted | On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the opening brief on the merits is extended to and including June 24, 2015. No further extensions will be contemplated. |
| 06/12/2015 | Opening brief on the merits filed | Defendant and Appellant: Adam Sergio Rodriguez Attorney: Jonathan E. Berger Opening brief on the merits filed. Due on 05/26/2015 By 32 Day(s) Opening brief on the merits filed. Due on 06/24/2015 By 0 Day |
| 06/12/2015 | Request for judicial notice filed | Defendant and Appellant: Adam Sergio Rodriguez Attorney: Jonathan E. Berger |
| 07/08/2015 | Compensation awarded counsel | Atty Berger |
| 07/10/2015 | Request for extension of time filed | The People, Plaintiff and Respondent Rene A. Chacon, AG staff Requesting 30 days' EOT to August 12, 2015, to file answer brief on the merits. |
| 07/15/2015 | Extension of time granted | On application of respondent and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to and including August 12, 2014. |
| 08/06/2015 | Answer brief on the merits filed | Plaintiff and Respondent: The People Attorney: Rene A. Chacon Answer brief on the merits filed. Due on 08/12/2015 By 30 Day(s) |
| 08/26/2015 | Reply brief filed (case fully briefed) | Defendant and Appellant: Adam Sergio Rodriguez Attorney: Jonathan E. Berger |
| 11/02/2015 | Notice of Unavailability of Counsel Filed | Counsel unavailable February 12, 2016, through March 4, 2016, and Friday March 11, 2016.Adam Sergio Rodriguez, Defendant and Appellant Jonathan E. Berger, CA appointed |
| 05/04/2016 | Case ordered on calendar | to be argued on Friday, May 27, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., in San Francisco. |
| 05/19/2016 | Request for judicial notice granted | Defendant's request for judicial notice, filed June 12, 2015, is granted. |
| 05/27/2016 | Cause argued and submitted | |
| 08/22/2016 | Opinion filed: Judgment reversed | We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand the case with directions that the Court of Appeal instruct the trial court to determine on the record, consistent with our analysis here, whether Judge Chiarello is now available to hear Rodriguez's relitigated suppression motion. Majority Opinion by Cuéllar, J. -- joined by Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., Werdegar, Chin, Liu, and Kruger, JJ. Concurring Opinion by Corrigan, J. |
| 09/14/2016 | Compensation awarded counsel | Atty Berger |
| 09/23/2016 | Remittitur issued | |
| 09/30/2016 | Received: | Receipt of Remittitur from CA6, dated Sept. 28, 2016. |
Briefs
PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ
Division SF
Division SF
Case Number S223129
| Brief | Date Filed | Party and Attorney | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opening brief on the merits filed | 06/12/2015 | | |
| Answer brief on the merits filed | 08/06/2015 | | |
| Reply brief filed (case fully briefed) | 08/26/2015 | |
Disposition
PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ
Division SF
Division SF
Case Number S223129
Only the following dispositions are displayed below: Orders Denying Petitions, Orders Granting Rehearing and Opinions. Go to the Docket Entries screen for information regarding orders granting review.
Case Citation:
none
| Date | Description |
|---|---|
| 08/22/2016 | Opinion: Reversed |
Lower Court
PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ
Division SF
Division SF
Case Number S223129
Court of Appeal District/Division:
Sixth Appellate District
Court of Appeal Case Number:
H038588
Disposition:
Affirmed with modifications
Disposition Date:
11/06/2014
Click the above Court of Appeal Case Number link for further information.
Trial Court:
Santa Clara County Superior Court
Trial Court Case Number:
C1110340