Jorgenson v. Superior Court CA3

── Jorgenson v. Superior Court CA3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 08, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/8/26 Jorgenson v. Superior Court CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) DANIEL ROBERT JORGENSON, C104945 Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. 25FE020045) v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Respondent. THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. This case involves a defendant’s right to a speedy preliminary hearing on a felony complaint under Penal Code1 section 859b. Relevant here, the statute requires the trial court to hold the preliminary hearing within 10 court days of the date the defendant is arraigned or pleads, whichever occurs later. (§ 859b.) It also, in pertinent part, requires the trial court to release the defendant on their own recognizance if “the defendant has remained in custody for 10 or more court days solely on that complaint,” unless one of six enumerated exceptions applies (none of which are at issue here). (§ 859b.) It is well established that the release provision operates only when “the defendant is in custody for 1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code. 1 reasons solely attributable to the charges to be adjudicated at the preliminary examination.” (People v. Standish (2006) 38 Cal.4th 858, 866, fn. 2; see Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 38 [§ 859b “has been interpreted as applying only to persons in custody solely by reason of the charges which are the subject of the preliminary hearing”].) In this case, the trial court denied Daniel Robert Jorgenson’s request to be released on his own recognizance under section 859b after the preliminary hearing in a Sacramento County felony case was scheduled beyond the 10-day period. The trial court denied the request because the parties agreed that, in addition to being in custody on the felony complaint, Jorgenson was also “being held” on unrelated out-of-county bench warrants in two misdemeanor cases. Jorgenson filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the trial court’s denial of his request for release. We issued an order to show cause why Jorgenson is not entitled to the relief requested. Having now considered the parties’ arguments, we conclude Jorgenson has not shown that he was in custody solely on the Sacramento County felony complaint when he requested own-recognizance release under section 859b. We thus deny his petition for writ of mandate. BACKGROUND I Factual Background The following facts are based on the parties’ briefs and the exhibits attached thereto. The California Highway Patrol Vehicle Theft Task Force arrested Jorgenson on: (1) a Sacramento County felony vehicle theft complaint; (2) a bench warrant with a set $20,000 bond or cash bail from El Dorado County in a misdemeanor drug possession, drug paraphernalia possession, and failure to appear case; and (3) a bench warrant with a $1,000 bond or cash bail from San Joaquin County in a misdemeanor driving with a 2 suspended license and failing to provide evidence of financial responsibility case.2 Jorgenson is being held in Sacramento County. On October 23, 2025, the tenth court day following the date of arraignment and Jorg