State v. Teems
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
Today we decide whether under the circum stances of this case the trial court abused its discretion when dismissing a criminal prosecution because the defendant was forced to choose between his rights to a speedy trial and adequately prepared counsel. Just 12 days remained on the speedy trial limit following an initial mistrial when the defendant actually received notice and was appointed counsel. Because we agree the trial judge did not abuse his discretion, we affirm.
FACTS
On March 1, 1996, the State, by amended information, charged Jimmy R. Teems with possession of marijuana in an amount…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Carroll v. JunkerWashington Supreme Court · 1971
- State v. MichielliWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. GreenwoodWashington Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. BlackwellWashington Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. DaileyWashington Supreme Court · 1980
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. Heredia-JuarezCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
- State v. RossCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1999
- State v. ParkerCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
- State Of Washington v. Seth Lamar FriendlyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2019
- State Of Washington, Resp-cross App v. Daniel J. Miltenberger, App-cross RespCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2020
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.