Within 90 days after the receipt of the request and certificate by the court and district attorney or within such additional time as the court for good cause shown in open court may grant, the prisoner or his counsel being present, the indictment, information or complaint shall be brought to trial; but the parties may stipulate for a continuance or a continuance may be granted on notice to the attorney of record and opportunity for him to be heard. If, after such a request, the indictment, information or complaint is not brought to trial within that period, no court of this state shall any longer have jurisdiction thereof, nor shall the untried indictment, information or complaint be of any further force or effect, and the court shall dismiss it with prejudice.
(Acts 1978, No. 590, p. 693, §5.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1992–1992 · leading case:
Ex Parte Springer, 619 So. 2d 1267 (Ala. 1992).
Ex Parte Springer, 619 So. 2d 1267 (Ala. 1992).
· cites it 5× “In his motion, Springer argued that the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of *1268 Detainers Act applied to intrastate prisoners and that he was entitled to a trial in 90 days under § 15-9-84. The motion was granted on October 2, 1991.”
Manning v. State, 612 So. 2d 1262 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992).
· cites it 3× “A Manning argues that Mobile County lost jurisdiction to try him when it failed to comply with the 90-day rule of § 15-9-84 of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act.”
Mayes v. State, 612 So. 2d 1328 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “The appellant claims that his not being tried within 90 days of his motion violated the provisions of § 15-9-84, Code of Alabama 1975. That section states: “Within 90 days after the receipt of the request and certificate by the court and district attorney or within such…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.