Hernandez v. State

I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion fairly and accurately reflects the controlling dates and time periods involved in this case. That opinion recognizes that if the periods of time resulting from the granting of the State’s two motions for continuance are added to the other time chargeable to the State, the total time exceeds the 120-day limit imposed by Code Crim.Pro. Article 32A.02.

The controlling issue then turns on the effect of Section 4(6)(A) of Article 32A.02 which states:

In computing the time by which the state must be ready for trial, the following periods shall be…