Legal Opinion

State v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided July 31, 1995No. 34768-3-IPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

Carl Jones argues his right to a speedy trial was violated and that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the criminal charge against him. We find that the State failed to exercise due diligence in bringing Jones before the court and therefore the Striker rule applies, requiring that a constructive arraignment be set. Because he was not tried within 90 days of the constructive arraignment, the charge should be dismissed.

I

On June 1, 1992, the State filed an information charging Carl Jones with attempted possession of cocaine. Over a year later, on June 16, 1993, Jones was…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. StrikerWashington Supreme Court · 1976
  2. State v. GreenwoodWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  3. State v. PetersonWashington Supreme Court · 1978
  4. State v. PerryCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1980
  5. State v. KitchenCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1994

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. SwensonWashington Supreme Court · 2003
  2. State v. SwensonWashington Supreme Court · 2003
  3. State v. ParkerCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
  4. State v. AustinCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
  5. State v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1995

1 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