Legal Opinion
State v. Harman
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided February 20, 2002No. 932917; A105876PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWollheem, J.
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). ORS 813.010. He claims that the five-year, seven-month delay between his arraignment and trial violated his statutory and constitutional entitlements to a speedy trial. We conclude that, while the delay did not violate the speedy trial provisions of either the Oregon or United States Constitutions, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s statutory speedy trial claim under ORS 135.747. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
The facts are undisputed. Defendant was arrested for DUII on June 24,…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- State v. IvoryOregon Supreme Court · 1977
- Application of HaynesOregon Supreme Court · 1980
- State v. EmeryOregon Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. MendeOregon Supreme Court · 1987
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. MyersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
- State v. PetersonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
- State v. DavidsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
- State v. AllenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
- State v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.