SF May Dismiss Over 100 Cases After Court Rules COVID-19 Delays Unlawful

Charges in more than 100 San Francisco criminal cases could be dismissed after an appellate court ruled that the San Francisco Superior Court unlawfully used COVID-19 as an excuse to delay a misdemeanor trial despite the expiration of pandemic-era emergency restrictions.

In a 13-page opinion issued Monday, the 1st District Court of Appeal ordered the case to be dismissed, writing that the state court went “beyond its proper judicial role” and “stepped into the shoes of the prosecution” when it delayed the case for more than a year.

Thousands of trials in San Francisco were delayed since the start of the pandemic, with more than 240 people being held in jail past the legal deadline at one point, according to a press release from the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office.

“Pretty much everybody charged with a crime in San Francisco over the last four years has been caught up in these backlogs,” San Francisco Deputy Public Defender Oliver Kroll said in an interview with KQED. “So we’re very glad the court of appeal has finally put a stop to it. And said that you have a right to a speedy trial in San Francisco. COVID-19 can no longer serve as an excuse.”

Kroll said he believes the court has violated a person’s speedy trial rights in over 100 other cases.

Lynette Mendoza, the defendant in the dismissed case, was arrested in October 2021 for driving under the influence, among other charges. In March 2023, Mendoza’s trial, along with a batch of other cases, was continued, citing COVID-19.

The trial was ultimately continued six more times until Mendoza filed a motion to dismiss for a statutory speedy trial violation. Judge Victor Hwang denied the request.

California law sets certain time limits by which a defendant must go to trial. In a misdemeanor case, the court must dismiss the case if it is not brought to trial within the time specified by law unless there is a compelling legal reason to delay or the defendant waives their right to a speedy trial.

The decision by the court of appeal could lead to reversals on appeal for defendants who were convicted after being deprived of their right to a speedy trial, according to the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office.

In an effort to create a binding precedent that the superior court would have to follow in other cases, the court of appeal took what it called an “unusual step” and published its opinion.

“There are potentially hundreds of misdemeanor cases in superior court that are beyond the statutory last day to commence trial under section 1382,” the opinion reads. “It appears that many of the defendants in those cases sought dismissal on the same basis as petitioner.”

The San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, which dismissed a number of cases due to delays, agreed with the court’s decision.

“We concur with the (appellate court’s) conclusion that ‘under the circumstances, the court abused its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss,’” the district attorney’s office said in a statement. “We saw then, what the First District clearly points out now, there was no competent evidence to continue cases without good cause.”