Legal Opinion
State v. Burkett
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided September 16, 1993No. 1 CA-CR 92-0317PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
NOYES, Judge.
We hold that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), found in Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. (AR.S.) section 31-481 (1986), does not apply to a sentencing detainer and neither does Rule 8.3(a) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule). We reverse the trial court, which had granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on grounds that the State’s delay in having Defendant returned to Arizona for sentencing violated both the IAD and Rule 8.3(a). Because Defendant’s motion to dismiss raised a constitutional speedy trial issue that the trial court’s ruling did not…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Doggett v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Pollard v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Asarco Inc. v. KadishSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- State v. TodiscoNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2000
- State v. BenakCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
- Painter v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2004
- Ex Parte McClintick, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1997
- Jolly v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2004
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.