Legal Opinion
State v. Smith
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided February 19, 1985No. 13422PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MAUS, Judge.
The defendant was convicted of burglary and stealing. He presents one point of alleged error. He contends the trial court erred in not dismissing the information because he was not brought to trial within the applicable period of limitation prescribed by the interstate Agreement on De-tainers (the agreement), § 217.490, RSMo Supp. 1984.
The need for and the history of the agreement has been well stated. United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 98 S.Ct. 1834, 56 L.Ed.2d 329 (1978); Brown v. Wolff, 706 F.2d 902 (9th Cir.1983). In general, the agreement provides a means for the…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- United States v. MauroSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- United States v. Richard T. FordCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
- United States v. Leroy EaddyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979
- Bernard Stroble v. Charles Anderson, Warden, State Prison of Southern Michigan, RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1978
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Craig v. BronsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- State v. McKayMissouri Court of Appeals · 2013
- State Ex Rel. Clark v. LongMissouri Court of Appeals · 1994
- State v. WaltonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1987
- State v. GalvanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1990
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.