State v. Dillon

IT respectfully concur. I write to assign further reasons in support of the majority’s conclusion.

The defendant in this case did not allege either in his motion to quash or orally at the hearing that his constitutional speedy trial right had been violated, and the issue was therefore arguably not properly considered by the trial court as a basis for its ruling in granting the motion to quash. Likewise, the speedy trial issue is arguably not properly before this court.

La.C.Cr.P. art. 536 provides:

A motion to quash shall be in writing, signed by the defendant or his attor*1149ney, and filed in open…