State v. Peterson

When determining a motion to dismiss under a speedy trial argument, the court must determine the length of the delay minus any periods of delay that the defendant consented to. Then, the court must determine whether the delay was reasonable after viewing the circumstances as a whole.

Defendant appealed the trial court's decision not to dismiss his case under ORS 135.747, which required a speedy trial. Defendant was charged for driving under the influence on September 26th, 2008. The trial date was delayed and postponed numerous times until it was finally scheduled for August 17, 2010. Defendant asserted the length of the postponement was unreasonable and that the delays violated ORS 135.747. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Court of Appeals used The Oregon Supreme Court's test in State v. Glushko/Little to determine the relevant delay. The test is the difference between the total delay and the amount of delay that the defendant requested or consented to. The Court found that Defendant requested or consented to postponement in 113 out of the 686 days. The Court also found that the delay of 573 days (19 months) was attributable to the State and unreasonable because it exceeded expectations for the misdemeanor crime. The Court of Appeals then evaluated whether the delay was justified by the attendant circumstances and found that in the 19 months, there were no special reasons or justifications for an unexplained five-month delay. Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment of dismissal.