Notice of arraignment by mail; Procedural due process; People v McGee; Personal service of citations; Prejudice required to establish a due process violation; People v Darden; Applicability of Jones v Flowers; Right to resist an unlawful arrest; People v Moreno; Sufficiency of the evidence; People v Vandenberg

The court rejected defendant’s procedural due process claim as to notice of the arraignment, held that she had no lawful right to resist the arrest, and concluded there was sufficient evidence to support her assaulting or resisting a police officer conviction. That conviction arose from what occurred when officers arrested her on two outstanding warrants for prior citations. She argued the arrest warrants were issued based on “a violation of her procedural due process rights due to insufficient notice of the arraignment[,]” which was provided by mail. The arraignment summons “was returned as undeliverable due to her homelessness.” The court noted that she “was personally served with two citations, each of which expressly set forth the nature of the charges pending against her and her obligation to appear in court” (although the arraignment date was omitted). “Service of these citations satisfied the requirements of due process by providing notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Further, her “decision to discard [them] in the police department’s trash receptacle upon her departure does not vitiate the sufficiency of service or the adequacy of the notice provided.” The court also found that she failed to identify “any cognizable prejudice arising from the alleged notice deficiency.” And even if prejudice was not a prerequisite, she “was unequivocally informed that a subsequent arraignment date would be provided, yet she failed to undertake any reasonable efforts to ascertain the status of her case, update her address, or otherwise remain apprised of her legal obligations, all while continuing to reside within the court’s jurisdiction. Her contention that the dismissal of” the prior charges had bearing was unconvincing, as this occurred after her arrest on the “outstanding warrants, not due to any procedural deficiencies attributable to the prosecution or the” trial court. Given the evidence presented that the arrest was lawful, and that defendant kicked one of the officers in the groin, the court held that there was sufficient evidence to support her conviction. Affirmed.