Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Wright

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided September 22, 2017No. 7200 S-15917Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCarney, Justice

I concur in the court’s conclusion that the filing of an information starts the speedy trial clock.

But I disagree with the court’s conclusion that the superior court did not err in holding that the pretrial delay was Wright’s fault. I am persuaded that the superior court clearly erred in so holding. And while I recognize that this court owes no deference to the court of appeals’ decision in this matter, I believe that its opinion of the facts of the case and the impact those facts had upon the pretrial delay more accurately reflects what occurred.

Not only did the State concede that “Wright…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. United States v. MarionSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Moore v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. Rutherford v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Alexander v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1980

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API