Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Martens

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 26, 1986PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLynch, J.

The defendant challenges the denial of his motions to dismiss an indictment charging him with two counts of armed robbery. He maintains that dismissal is required under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (agreement), to which the Commonwealth is a party. St. 1965, c. 892, § 1. After the defendant appealed from his convictions on the two counts of the indictment, we granted his application for direct appellate review. Because we conclude that the defendant has failed to demonstrate compliance with the agreement, we affirm.

On March 3, 1982, the defendant was indicted by a grand jury on two…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Carchman v. NashSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Commonwealth v. De ChristoforoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
  3. Pittman v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1973
  4. McCallum v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1981
  5. People v. DailyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1977

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. David Andrew Birdwell v. Jack Skeen, Jr., Criminal District Attorney of Smith County, TexasCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1993
  2. Christopher Martens v. James Shannon, Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1988
  3. Commonwealth v. RzepphiewskiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000
  4. State v. TarangoNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1987
  5. State v. MooreTennessee Supreme Court · 1989

20 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