State v. Ashcroft

When a trial court properly grants a motion to continue under ORS 135.763(2), after the district attorney receives notice from Defendant requesting a speedy trial under ORS 135.760 to 135.765, the trial court is not required to dismiss the case if time lapsed is greater than 90 days.

Defendant appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. Defendant plead guilty and was convicted of harassment. Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for failure to bring trial within 90 days of his proper written request under ORS 135.760 to 135.765. Defendant was arraigned on June 6, 2009, while an inmate, he submitted a request for a speedy trial under ORS 135.760. The trial was originally set for August 27, 2009. On August 10, 2009, defense counsel asked for a continuance stating: that she would not be ready to proceed on the set date, additionally, filed a motion to determine if Defendant was fit to stand trial. No new trial date was set until December 14, 2009, when the court was notified by the Oregon State Hospital that Defendant was fit to stand trial. The new trial date was set for March 4, 2010. Defendant argued that the trial court should have "tolled" the time between his original August trial date, and the second date in March, as it had been 127 days, and the trial court should have dismissed the charge for failure to bring trial within 90 days. Here, the charge does not require dismissal because Defendant has been brought to trial in accordance with ORS 135.763. The Court found that the 90 day provision is not applicable in situations where the failure to bring speedy trial was due to motions made by Defendant. Furthermore the continuances were properly granted, with good cause, under ORS 135.763(2). Therefore, the trial court was not required to dismiss. Affirmed.