State v. Cupp

A delay of 11 months for a trial for DUII, when only 34 days of that time are unaccounted for, does not amount to an unreasonable delay and, consequently, a denial of a speedy trial.

Defendant appealed the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss due to lack of a speedy trial. Defendant was arrested on March 17, 2007 for DUII, a misdemeanor. The trial court rescheduled the DUII trial for after an unrelated felony charge was resolved resulting in approximately 38 months of delay. Defendant argued that 16 months of that delay was attributable to the State and unreasonable under ORS 135.747. The trial court disagreed, Defendant’s motion was denied, and he was convicted. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals determined that the state-attributed delay totaled 11 months. The Court held that, while this exceeded what would normally be expected for a DUII charge, it was not unreasonable because the delays were attributed to routine scheduling delays that are inherent in every case. The Court did find that 34 days out of the 11 months of delay were unaccounted for, and, therefore, unjustified, but this did not make the entire delay unreasonable. Affirmed.