State v. Mandonado

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Mandonado

150 P.3d 6, 210 Or. App. 102, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1959

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 20, 2006

Docket03CR0208; A126910

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 150 P.3d 6 (State v. Mandonado) 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. Mandonado, 150 P.3d 6, 210 Or. App. 102, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1959 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

*103 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction on one count of possession of a precursor substance with intent to manufacture a controlled substance. ORS 475.967. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge on statutory speedy trial grounds pursuant to ORS 135.747, which provides, in part, that if a defendant “is not brought to trial within a reasonable period of time, the court shall order the accusatory instrument to be dismissed.” The state concedes the error. As explained below, we accept that concession and, consequently, reverse and remand.

Defendant was indicted on March 13, 2003. Defendant moved to dismiss the charge on September 7, 2004, and the court held a hearing on the motion on September 28, 2004. At the hearing, the prosecutor acknowledged that the state was responsible for the delay but offered no explanation. The trial court denied defendant’s motion. On appeal, the state concedes that, under State v. Davids, 339 Or 96, 116 P3d 894 (2005), an unexplained delay of this duration in these circumstances is unreasonable under ORS 135.747. We agree. See also State v. Adams, 339 Or 104, 116 P3d 898 (2005); State v. Johnson, 339 Or 69, 116 P3d 879 (2005), cert den, _ US _, 127 S Ct 724, 166 L Ed 2d 564 (2006).

Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss charge without prejudice.

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

*103 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction on one count of possession of a precursor substance with intent to manufacture a controlled substance. ORS 475.967. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge on statutory speedy trial grounds pursuant to ORS 135.747, which provides, in part, that if a defendant “is not brought to trial within a reasonable period of time, the court shall order the accusatory instrument to be dismissed.” The state concedes the error. As explained below, we accept that concession and, consequently, reverse and remand.

Defendant was indicted on March 13, 2003. Defendant moved to dismiss the charge on September 7, 2004, and the court held a hearing on the motion on September 28, 2004. At the hearing, the prosecutor acknowledged that the state was responsible for the delay but offered no explanation. The trial court denied defendant’s motion. On appeal, the state concedes that, under State v. Davids, 339 Or 96, 116 P3d 894 (2005), an unexplained delay of this duration in these circumstances is unreasonable under ORS 135.747. We agree. See also State v. Adams, 339 Or 104, 116 P3d 898 (2005); State v. Johnson, 339 Or 69, 116 P3d 879 (2005), cert den, _ US _, 127 S Ct 724, 166 L Ed 2d 564 (2006).

Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss charge without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 P.3d 6, 210 Or. App. 102, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mandonado-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack