2017 ORS 135.763¹

Trial within 90 days of notice unless continuance granted

See also annota­tions under ORS 134.520 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

Letter of inmate to district attorney requesting in­for­ma­­tion concerning status of pending charge of theft was not “notice of requesting trial” pursuant to this sec­tion. State v. Williams, 39 Or App 223, 592 P2d 226 (1979)

Where notice to district attorney of request for trial contained only “/S/” on the line above word “defendant” but ribbon copy that defendant had filed with clerk of court had been signed by defendant per­sonally, copy informed district attorney of defendant’s desire to avail himself of rights under ORS 135.760 (Notice requesting early trial on pending charge) et seq. State v. Holden, 41 Or App 661, 598 P2d 1252 (1979)

Once inmate requests speedy trial, this sec­tion also requires inmate’s express con­sent to continuance of trial of pending crim­i­nal charges. State v. Clarkson, 87 Or App 342, 742 P2d 657 (1987)

Court may grant mo­tion for continuance for good cause where essential witness is hospitalized and unavailable for trial. State v. Guest, 103 Or App 594, 798 P2d 708 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Where neither district attorney nor defendant requested continuance, court had no authority to deny defendant’s mo­tion to dismiss when trial was not commenced within 90 days of receipt of notice; court will not read “good cause” excep­tion into require­ment that state or defendant request continuance. State v. Person, 113 Or App 40, 831 P2d 700 (1992), aff’d 316 Or 585, 853 P2d 813 (1993)

Where prisoner was incarcerated outside of state, 90-day period did not commence until prisoner was returned to custody of Depart­ment of Correc­tions. Danielson v. Maass, 123 Or App 366, 860 P2d 286 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Where court raised issue of defendant’s speedy trial request at arraign­ment hearing and explained that granting defendant’s request for continuance meant that trial may not occur within 90-day period and defendant and de­fense counsel indicated assent, defendant waived right to speedy trial. State v. Hunter, 316 Or 192, 850 P2d 366 (1993)

Penalty-phase pro­ceed­ing is not subject to speedy trial request because no charge is pending at that phase. State v. Pinnell, 319 Or 438, 877 P2d 635 (1994)

Where inmate is released from incarcera­tion after making request for early trial, state has no duty to provide early trial. State v. Becker, 224 Or App 56, 197 P3d 44 (2008)

Where de­fense counsel requested that court remove case from trial docket to permit defendant to undergo psychiatric evalua­tion at Oregon State Hospital and court granted continuance, 90 day period no longer applies and court is not re­quired to reschedule new date for case within 90 days. State v. Ashcroft, 260 Or App 1, 316 P3d 355 (2013), Sup Ct review denied

Notes of Decisions

Where defendant, who requested speedy trial, made written mo­tion for psychiatric examina­tion and a continuance, state had already set trial within 90-day limit, and examina­tion was delayed because of state hospital backlog which resulted in delay of trial beyond 90-day limit, circumstances were not sufficient to require dismissal of charges. State v. Fannin, 48 Or App 795, 617 P2d 953 (1980)

Where accusatory instru­ment did not exist at time defendant claims to have given written notice requesting speedy trial, notice cannot trigger statutory rights. State v. Easton, 103 Or App 184, 797 P2d 373 (1990)