State v. Bayer

Parentheticals

• holding that a nine-month delay, of which 20 days were requested by the defendant and the remaining time was for routine delays, was reasonable

  State v. LINH THAT CAM TON

• concluding that the defendant had not established a speedy trial violation under Article I, section 10

  State v. Wendt

• noting that, “under the aspirational standards, 98 percent of nonfelonies should be adjudicated within six months” and assuming that the state-attributed delay of approximately eight months exceeded expectations for bringing the defendant to trial on a DUII charge

  State v. Cupp

• where state cited the defendant for DUII, dismissed citation, and then filed an information charging DUII, the defendant was “charged” for speedy trial purposes when the information was filed

  State v. Ellis

• “[W]hen the state dismisses one charging instrument but subsequently files another, the prosecution commences with the second charging instrument and, thus, serves as the starting point for calculating the relevant delay for purposes of ORS 135.747.”

  State v. Murr