1

Filed 2/22/24 P. v. Osborne CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for 

publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

HEIDI ELIZABETH OSBORNE,

Defendant and Respondent.

E080145

(Super.Ct.No. INF1801872)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge. 

Affirmed.

Michael A. Hestrin, District Attorney, and Jesse Male, Deputy District Attorney, 

for Plaintiff and Appellant.

William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Respondent.
2

In June 2019, the Riverside County District Attorney (the Prosecutor) filed an 

information charging defendant, Heidi Elizabeth Osborne, with second degree burglary. 

(Pen. Code, § 459.) In October 2022, defendant moved to dismiss the case due to her 

right to a speedy trial being violated. The trial court granted the motion. The 

Prosecutor contends the trial court erred because the delay was due to the pandemic, 

which was an exceptional circumstance creating good cause for the delay in bringing 

the case to trial. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In her motion to dismiss, defendant contended, “there are 2,800 backlogged cases 

with approximately 18 available trial courtrooms.” Defendant asserted she would “face 

years of continuances if the court[ ] . . . allow[ed] continuances indefinitely.” In 

opposition, the Prosecutor contended they were ready for trial, but the court lacked an 

available trial department. The Prosecutor contended the pandemic, which was an 

exceptional circumstance, created the trial delay so the case should be continued—not 

dismissed.

On October 28, 2022, during the hearing on defendant’s motion, the trial court 

explained that it was dismissing the case “for the reasons articulated and reasons [sic] in 

People versus Freeman,” which is another trial court case that was dismissed on October 

28, 2022. In the Freeman case, the trial court said, “[W]e had no open and available 

courtrooms in order to send this case to.” 
3

The trial court explained: there were 15 criminal departments in the midst of

trying cases; four civil departments were trying criminal cases; the court had applied for 

assistance from the assigned judge program, but no assistance had come; and Riverside 

County needs 115 judicial officers, but has funding for only “75 judges and 15 

subordinate judicial officers,” and of those, there are “eight current vacancies.” The 

trial court determined that the Superior Court of Riverside County is “operating at about 

70 percent of [its] assessed need,” and its “deficit of authorized and funded judicial 

positions is the second worst in the state, second only to San Bernardino County.”

DISCUSSION

The Prosecutor contends the trial court erred by dismissing the case because the 

pandemic was an exceptional circumstance that permitted the court to exceed speedy 

trial deadlines. 

“Under [Penal Code] section 1382, subdivision (a)(2), ‘[t]he presumptive time 

period established by state law for bringing a felony case to trial is 60 days from the 

date a defendant is arraigned on an information or indictment.’ [Citation.] If a felony 

case is not brought to trial within that deadline, the trial court ‘shall order the action to 

be dismissed’ unless there is good cause for the delay. [Citation.]

“Good cause does not exist ‘when the lack of a judge or courtroom available to 

timely bring a criminal defendant to trial is fairly and reasonably attributable to the fault 

or neglect of the state.’ [Citation.] Court congestion therefore does not constitute good 

cause unless it is caused by ‘ “exceptional circumstance[s].” ’ [Citation.] [¶] The trial 
4

court has ‘broad discretion to determine whether good cause exists to grant a 

continuance of the trial.’ [Citation.] We therefore review a trial court’s good-cause 

determination for an abuse of discretion.” (People v. Superior Court (Tapia) (2023) 93 

Cal.App.5th 394, 402 (Tapia).)

Tapia concerned the dismissal of a criminal case by the Superior Court of 

Riverside County in October 2022, due to the lack of an available courtroom. (Tapia,

supra, 93 Cal.App.5th at p. 400.) In Tapia, this court explained that the Superior Court 

of Riverside County is “severely underfunded and understaffed,” and noted its status as 

“the second or third most underfunded trial court in California.” (Tapia, supra, 93 

Cal.App.5th at pp. 403-404, fn. omitted.) This court denied the Prosecutor’s writ 

petition that challenged the dismissal of the case, reasoning, “Given the Superior 

Court’s chronic congestion that has existed for nearly two decades and remains 

unresolved to this day, [the trial court] reasonably could find that [the petitioner’s] case 

could not timely be brought to trial because [the fact that] there was no available judge 

was ‘fairly attributable to the state’s failure, over a considerable period of time, to 

provide a number of judges sufficient to meet the needs of Riverside County’s rapidly 

growing population and caseload—a circumstance fairly attributable to the fault or 

neglect of the state.’ ” (Id. at p. 407.) In sum, the lower court reasonably found that the 

petitioner’s case could not be tried in a timely manner “simply because there are ‘[n]ot 

enough judges.’ ” (Id. at p. 408.) Our Supreme Court denied the Prosecutor’s petition 

for review in Tapia on September 27, 2023, S281419.
5

We follow this court’s decision in Tapia. It was within reason for the trial court 

to conclude that in October 2022—two and one-half years after the start of the 

pandemic—the Superior Court of Riverside County was doing “everything within its 

means to bring criminal cases to trial within [Penal Code] section 1382’s deadline. 

Despite its best efforts, the superior court simply does not have enough judges to 

adequately tackle its chronic congestion, . . .” (Tapia, supra, 93 Cal.App.5th at pp. 407-

408.) Because the delay was due to chronic court congestion, there was no good cause 

for failing to bring the case to trial in a timely manner. Thus, the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion.

The Prosecutor argues that the pandemic is an exceptional circumstance creating 

good cause for the delay in bringing the case to trial. However, October 2022 was two 

and one-half years after the start of the pandemic. While the pandemic was an ongoing 

circumstance in October 2022, to describe anything that has been going on for two and 

one-half years as “exceptional” would undermine the word “exceptional.” In other 

words, anything lasting for two and one-half years tends to become more ordinary than 

exceptional. Thus, the trial court reasonably rejected the theory that in October 2022, 

the pandemic provided good cause for further delaying defendant’s trial.
6

DISPOSITION

The dismissal order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

MENETREZ

J.