State v. Chaddock

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Chaddock

91 P.3d 834, 193 Or. App. 820, 2004 Ore. App. LEXIS 710

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 16, 2004

Docket9902-30941; A119461

StatusPublished

This text of 91 P.3d 834 (State v. Chaddock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Chaddock, 91 P.3d 834, 193 Or. App. 820, 2004 Ore. App. LEXIS 710 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

*821 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted on three counts of possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charges based on violation of his statutory speedy trial rights. ORS 135.747. The state concedes that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion. As explained below, we find the state’s concession to be well founded. We therefore reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the charges.

Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance in May 1999. A warrant was issued for his arrest but was not executed. Defendant was stopped in June 2002 on an unrelated traffic offense and was then arrested on the outstanding warrant. The record contains no information concerning why the warrant was not executed earlier. The state concedes that our case law establishes that it bears the responsibility for the unexplained delay. See generally State v. Rohlfing, 155 Or App 127, 963 P2d 87 (1998). We conclude that the 37-month unexplained delay in this case violates ORS 135.747.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss indictment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*821 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted on three counts of possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charges based on violation of his statutory speedy trial rights. ORS 135.747. The state concedes that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion. As explained below, we find the state’s concession to be well founded. We therefore reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the charges.

Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance in May 1999. A warrant was issued for his arrest but was not executed. Defendant was stopped in June 2002 on an unrelated traffic offense and was then arrested on the outstanding warrant. The record contains no information concerning why the warrant was not executed earlier. The state concedes that our case law establishes that it bears the responsibility for the unexplained delay. See generally State v. Rohlfing, 155 Or App 127, 963 P2d 87 (1998). We conclude that the 37-month unexplained delay in this case violates ORS 135.747.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss indictment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 P.3d 834, 193 Or. App. 820, 2004 Ore. App. LEXIS 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-chaddock-orctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack