Dunbar v. State
Opinion
OPINION
Calvin Dunbar has filed a petition for review from an order denying his motions to dismiss three criminal cases. He claims his right to speedy trial under Criminal Rule 45 was violated.1 The three cases in[2]*2volved identical issues and were consolidated. The threshold question is whether a petition for review should be granted .from an order denying a motion to dismiss under Rule 45. This case is not unusual; it presents no major issue, constitutional or [3]*3otherwise. Dunbar simply disagrees with the trial court’s manner of counting the excluded days under Rule 45(d).
We must be guided by the over-all purpose of Rule 45 to secure speedy trials. The rule has already proved to be a prolific source of litigation regarding the counting of the days included in and excluded from the four-month period. If we granted review in this case, we would be encouraging similar petitions in every case where the trial court denies a Rule 45 motion to dismiss. Such pre-trial review would necessarily result in extensive delays frustrating the manifest purpose of Rule 45.
Petition for review denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
526 P.2d 1 (Dunbar v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.