How have the courts dealt with a motion to dismiss?

defendant, and found people that had not been interviewed during the 1982-1983 investigation. Defendant offered no evidence at the hearing on the motion to dismiss to contradict this. The trial court found that there was no evidence of an intentional or deliberate delay to gain a tactical advantage, no evidence of negligence on the part of the prosecutor and whatever prejudice defendant suffered was outweighed by the justification for the delay. Defendant points to no evidence that undermines the factual findings, which we are obliged to accept if supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 431.) Defendant concedes that such matters are relevant to the balancing process and "justification for the delay is strong when there is 'investigative delay, nothing else.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.) However, as we have already concluded, the prejudice to defendant that he could not have avoided was so minimal that, in our view, little to no justification was required. Certainly, defendant has presented no basis upon which we may determine that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.

The judgment is affirmed.