State v. Hernandez-Lopez

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 08-08-2012
  • Case #: A141240
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Brewer, J., for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; and Sercombe, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Regardless of whether or not the defendant consented to delay of trial, dismissal for lack of speedy trial is not appropriate where the delay was not unreasonable and the defendant was aware of his prior obligation to appear.

Defendant was arrested for DUII and Driving While Suspended in 1999. On the same day of his arrest, Defendant signed identical release forms which indicated that he was to appear in court at a later date and in which he acknowledged that a failure to appear was a separate crime. Defendant then failed to appear at a pre-trial conference. Defendant's trial date finally occurred in 2009. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. The trial court dismissed and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court then remanded the case for reconsideration in light of State v. Glushko. A dismissal for lack of a speedy trial is only appropriate if Defendant did not consent to delay and if delay was then unreasonable. The Court of Appeals held that although Defendant did not consent to the delay, the delay was not unreasonable and therefore dismissal was appropriate. Defendant had notice of the pretrial conference and therefore the delay in the trial following his absence from the pretrial conference was not unreasonable. Affirmed.

Advanced Search