State v. Stephens

When analyzing a motion to dismiss based on a speedy trial argument, a court must determine the length of the delay and whether the defendant consented to the delay. Then, the court must determine whether the delay was reasonable given the circumstances.

Defendant appealed his driving under the influence of intoxicants conviction (DUII). Defendant was charged with DUII in April 2002, but was not brought to trial until March 2009. Defendant entered into a diversion agreement on the DUII charge in May 2002. The trial court issued two orders requiring the Defendant to appear in December 2002 and May 2003. In June 2003, the court terminated Defendant’s diversion for his failure to appear. The court issued a warrant for Defendant’s arrest and he was arrested in November 2008. Defendant moved to dismiss the DUII conviction, claiming that the State did not bring Defendant to trial within a reasonable time. The motion was denied and Defendant was convicted of DUII. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision but the Oregon Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case based on its decision in State v. Glushko/Little. State v. Glushko/Little requires a court to determine the length of the delay and whether defendant consented to the delay. Then, the court must determine whether the delay was reasonable given the circumstances. On remand, the Court of Appeals held there was evidence in the record that Defendant had notice of the June 2003 hearing and that the delay in Defendant’s case was reasonable. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion. Affirmed.