How have courts dealt with the statute of limitations argument in this case?

We begin by addressing briefly defendant's statute of limitations argument. His claim is as follows: The offenses in question occurred between June, 1978 and March, 1979. Although the indictment was filed on December 4, 1980, the amended information, which alleged new charges, was not filed until July, 1982. By that time the then three-year statute on the alleged crimes had run. Thus, under the authority of People v. Chapman (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 597, 121 Cal.Rptr. 315, the judgment must be reversed.

Defendant's argument must be rejected. The indictment charged him with the crimes of embezzlement and false pretenses. The amended information charged him with grand theft. The crime of grand theft includes that of embezzlement and false pretenses. (People v. Britz (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 743, 751, 95 Cal.Rptr. 303; Pen.Code, 487, subd. (1).) Thus no new offense was charged.

[193 Cal.App.3d 1343]

Page 33

We turn next to the question of waiver. Penal Code section 1382, subdivision (1) states, "The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, must order the action to be dismissed in the following cases: 1. When a person has been held to answer for a public offense and an information is not filed against him within 15 days thereafter." Few cases have dealt with violations of this section. In People v. Farrington (1903) 140 Cal. 656, 74 P. 288 and People v. Ludviksen (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 996, 87 Cal.Rptr. 781, the court found the prosecution had shown good cause for the delay. Thus these cases are clearly distinguishable.