State v. Hudson

Thomas Merle Hudson challenges the superior court’s determination that his speedy trial rights were not violated. The court found the State used due diligence in bringing him to court for arraignment after a nineteen-month delay between the filing of the charges and his arraignment. We reject Hudson’s challenge and affirm on the argued alternative ground that Hudson was not amenable to process. Hudson lived in Arizona during the relevant time period. This fact rendered him "not amenable” to process, thus tolling the speedy trial period under the court rules and the rule of State v. Striker.

Hud…