State v. Gonzales-Sanchez

A six-year delay in prosecuting a DUII charge did not violate the defendant's right to a speedy trial because the delay was primarily caused by the defendant by failing to fulfill his obligations under the diversion agreement he entered into with the court.

Defendant petitioned the Court to reconsider its decision to affirm without opinion after the Oregon Supreme Court decided State v. Glushko/Little. In 2003, the trial court was notified that the Defendant had failed both to pay diversion fees and to enroll in alcohol treatment for a DUII diversion agreement entered the previous year. The court ordered Defendant to appear in a termination hearing, notice for which was mailed and returned by the USPS. Defendant's diversion was then terminated and a warrant for his arrest was issued. In 2009, Defendant turned himself in, and filed a motion to dismiss the DUII charge, arguing that the six-year delay between termination of diversion and trial was not reasonable under ORS 135.747. While the Court found that the defendant did not consent to the delay because such consent can only be given through express agreement, the delay was reasonable under ORS 135.747 because Defendant was aware of the pending criminal charge against him, his obligations, and the consequences if they were not met. The Court found that the State made sufficient attempts to contact him, and thus the delay was primarily caused by the defendant. Affirmed.