Charles Sprinkler Served and filed 13Feb 2003 at 4:50 a.m. by Douglas.
1273 Rice Road #48
Ojai CA 93023
640 0439
In Pro Per
This motion is posted at www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5685.html
This motion is listed on my Steve762 and Charlie page: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5695.html
Combined Superior and Municipal Court of California
800 S. Victoria, Ventura CA 93003
People
v
Charles Sprinkler
Case # 2002: 013, 441
Document #5615
Notice of 995 Motion and Motion for Continuance until after I receive the transcripts for which I have been waiting for weeks, perhaps over a month.
Notice of 995 Motion
Declaration of Defendant re Court’s 1 month delay in producing tapes.
Demand for continuance prior to arraignment to permit me to appeal the denial of 1638.5 motion if necessary.
Proof of Service
Date: 14 Feb 2003
Place: Court 14.
Time: 9 a.m.
Contents
Notice of 995 Motion and Motion for Continuance of until Thursday April 3rd.
Application for Order Shortening Time for service of this Continuance
Declaration of Defendant re Court’s 42 day delay in producing tapes.
Notice of 995 Motion and Motion for Continuance of until Thursday April 3rd.
I, the Defendant, now ask this court to continue this arraignment due to the delay by the court of 6 weeks in providing tape recordings of the transcripts of earlier sessions and due to the delay of the court reporters in preparing the transcripts. I have not received them yet. That makes it impossible for my legal counsel to know what happened.
I plan to do a 995 Motion and serve that within a week. A 995 motion can be appealed before trial and so can a 1538.5 motion. Therefore the trial must be continued because I intend to appeal them before trial.
Application for Order Shortening Time for service of this Continuance
The trial should not have been set for the same day as the demurrer. In fact the trial should not have been set until the arraignment which cannot happen until after the demurrer which was not held. That is why I ordered the transcript.
Declaration of Defendant re Court’s 42 day delay in producing tapes.
I, Charles Sprinkle, declare the following under penalty of perjury: I waited 35 days after promptly ordering the tape recording of the prior session so that I could take appropriate action. Then I had to get the recordings transcribed. I have waited a week and the court reporter had not yet transcribed them. I intend to take appellate action on what happened at the previous session, namely the court ignored my demurrer and arraigned me without giving me a chance to prepare. Some other things happened by I don’t know what they were. That is why I promptly ordered the tape recordings. I need them to prepare for today and to undo my previous arraignment by going to the court of appeal or making a motion here.
________________________________
I, Douglas Palaschak, declare the following under penalty of perjury: On 13 Feb 2003 I served this paper on the receptionist at the D.A. office at about 4:50. Thereafter I filed this motion with the clerk. Signed _________________________.Feb 13, 2003