2017 ORS 135.765¹
Dismissal of criminal proceeding not brought to trial within allowed time
  • exceptions

(1) On motion of the defendant or the counsel of the defendant, or on its own motion, the court shall dismiss any criminal proceeding not brought to trial in accordance with ORS 135.763 (Trial within 90 days of notice unless continuance granted).

(2) This section shall not apply:

(a) When failure to bring the inmate to trial within 90 days after the district attorney receives notice under ORS 135.760 (Notice requesting early trial on pending charge) was the result of motions filed on behalf of the inmate, or of a grant by the court of a continuance on motion of the district attorney or on its own motion, for good cause shown; or

(b) When the inmate is unavailable for trial, other than by imprisonment, or because of other pending criminal proceedings against the inmate. [Formerly 134.530; 1993 c.542 §2]

See also annota­tions under ORS 134.530 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

State may not avoid require­ment of bringing defendant to trial within 90 days by voluntarily dismissing indict­ment then reindicting defendant. State v. Gilliland, 90 Or App 477, 752 P2d 1255 (1988)

Where neither district attorney nor defendant requested continuance under ORS 135.763 (Trial within 90 days of notice unless continuance granted), court had no authority to deny defendant’s mo­tion to dismiss when trial was not commenced within 90 days of receipt of notice. State v. Person, 113 Or App 40, 831 P2d 700 (1992), aff’d 316 Or 585, 853 P2d 813 (1993)

Dismissal of charge for failure to bring defendant to trial within 90 days must be with prejudice. State v. Waechter, 163 Or App 282, 986 P2d 1281 (1999)

Where court grants continuance at request of de­fense counsel, dismissal under this sec­tion of charges against defendant is not appropriate. 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)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 135—Arraignment and Pretrial Provisions, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors135.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 135, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano135.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.