I noted in the last edition of the California Legal Update (Vol. 25, #9, July 14, 2020), citing Stanley v. Superior Court (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 164, that the current pandemic establishes “good cause” to delay a defendant’s statutory speedy trial rights. However, this is apparently not always true; a fact that prosecutors, in particular, need to know. On June 24th , the First District Court of Appeal held in Bullock v. Superior Court [People] (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 134, that COVID-19’s effect on the timely holding of a statutorily mandated court hearing will not be presumed; that a “particularized showing” must be made establishing a nexus between the COVID-19 pandemic and the superior court’s purported inability to conduct a defendant’s court hearings in a timely fashion. In a writ petition brought pursuant to Pen. Code, § 871.6 and challenging the court’s failure to provide petitioner Dyjuan Bullock (charged with one count of human trafficking [P.C. § 236.1(b)] and two counts of pimping [P.C. § 266h(a)] with a timely preliminary hearing, the Court concluded that good cause to delay the in-custody Bullock’s preliminary hearing had not been established. In the absence of the required particularized showing, the superior court abused its discretion in finding that Penal Code § 859b (providing for a preliminary hearing within 10 court days of an in-custody defendant’s arraignment absent a showing of “good cause” for a delay) had not been violated. To the contrary, with no justification for the delay established, Bullock was entitled to a dismissal of his case. Bullock’s writ petition was dismissed as moot, however, in that while all this was pending, he and the prosecution had worked out a plea agreement. But that does not alter the fact that it must be established that the pandemic made the delay in a defendant’s case necessary. Failing to do so on a case by case basis is going to result in a lot of dismissals of pending criminal cases. Not good.