Title: P. v. Sutton
Citation: 48 Cal. 4th 533. modification : 48 Cal. 4th 811a
Docket Number: S166402, S166402m
State: California
Issuer: California Supreme Court
Date: May 20, 2010

Filed 5/20/10 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
THE PEOPLE, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
) 
S166402 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 2/3 B195337 
MICHAEL JEROME SUTTON et al., 
) 
 
) 
Los Angeles County 
 
Defendant  and Appellant. 
) 
Super. Ct. No. BA304502 
 ___________________________________ ) 
 
MODIFICATION OF OPINION 
THE COURT: 
The opinion filed on April 5, 2010, and published at 48 Cal.4th 533, is modified as 
follows:  
At page 546, second full paragraph, insert the following new footnote 7 after the 
citations that follow the first sentence and end with “Jensen v. Superior Court (2008) 160 
Cal.App.4th 266, 271-275 [72 Cal.Rptr.3d 594].)”: 
7/  When the prosecution fails to establish adequate justification for the delay, the 
circumstance that the delay is not likely to prejudice the defendant’s ability to present a 
defense does not, in itself, constitute good cause to avoid a dismissal under section 1382.  
(See, e.g., Sykes v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 83, 88-89 [“A dismissal is . . . 
mandated in those situations covered by the statute if, at the time a defendant moves 
therefor, the 60-day period has elapsed and good cause for the delay is not shown by the 
prosecution.  In these circumstances the defendant is not required to make any further 
showing, and in particular he is not required to make an affirmative showing that he has 
been prejudiced by the delay.”].)  When the prosecution makes a prima facie showing of 
adequate justification for the delay, however, the circumstance that the delay is likely to 
prejudice the defendant’s litigating position is a relevant factor in determining whether 
good cause for the delay has been established.  (See, e.g., Stroud v. Superior Court, 
supra, 23 Cal.4th 952, 971.) 
The subsequent footnotes are renumbered. 
This modification does not affect the judgment.