speedy trial violation in Arkansas

2004See, e.g., Chandler v. State, 284 Ark. 560 , 683 S.W.2d 928 (1985).

2004See, e.g., Chandler v. State, 284 Ark. 560 , 683 S.W.2d 928 (1985).

2024App. 253, at 7 , 624 S.W.3d 718, 722 , “Without contemporaneous—or at a minimum, first-opportunity—objections to these orders, Smith’s arguments are not preserved.” (Footnote omitted.) We observed that Smith’s case 15 was unlike Tanner v. State, 324 Ark. 37 , 42–43, 918 S.W.2d 166, 169 (1996), which held that an appellant did not waive his right to move for dismissal based on a speedy-trial violation when the record showed that the circuit court continued a case sua sponte and without the appellant or counsel at the hearing.

2024App. 253, at 7 , 624 S.W.3d 718, 722 , “Without contemporaneous—or at a minimum, first-opportunity—objections to these orders, Smith’s arguments are not preserved.” (Footnote omitted.) We observed that Smith’s case 15 was unlike Tanner v. State, 324 Ark. 37 , 42–43, 918 S.W.2d 166, 169 (1996), which held that an appellant did not waive his right to move for dismissal based on a speedy-trial violation when the record showed that the circuit court continued a case sua sponte and without the appellant or counsel at the hearing.

2009Our supreme court discussed the speedy-trial requirements in Turner v. State, 349 Ark. 715, 720-21 , 80 S.W.3d 382, 386 (2002), as follows: Under Ark.

2009Our supreme court discussed the speedy-trial requirements in Turner v. State, 349 Ark. 715, 720-21 , 80 S.W.3d 382, 386 (2002), as follows: Under Ark.

2024See also Robertson v. State, 2019 Ark.

2021See also Robertson v. State, 2019 Ark.

2017Franklin v. State, 2015 Ark. 455, at 2-3 , 476 S.W.3d 786, 787 (per curiam) (citing State v. Wilmoth, 369 Ark. 346, 351 , 255 S.W.3d 419, 423 (2007)).

2017Franklin v. State, 2015 Ark. 455, at 2-3 , 476 S.W.3d 786, 787 (per curiam) (citing State v. Wilmoth, 369 Ark. 346, 351 , 255 S.W.3d 419, 423 (2007)).

2016See Camargo v. State, 346 Ark. 118 , 55 S.W.3d 255 (2001).

2016See Camargo v. State, 346 Ark. 118 , 55 S.W.3d 255 (2001).

2023“Good cause is demonstrated where the State has good reason to seek the nolle prosequi and there is no indication the State is simply trying to evade the speedy-trial requirement.” State v. Crawford, 373 Ark. 95, 99 , 281 S.W.3d 736, 740 (2008).

2023“Good cause is demonstrated where the State has good reason to seek the nolle prosequi and there is no indication the State is simply trying to evade the speedy-trial requirement.” State v. Crawford, 373 Ark. 95, 99 , 281 S.W.3d 736, 740 (2008).

2020Yarbrough v. State, 370 Ark. 31 , 257 S.W.3d 50 (2007).

2020Yarbrough v. State, 370 Ark. 31 , 257 S.W.3d 50 (2007).

2005“Once the defendant presents a. prima facie case of a speedy-trial violation ... the State has the burden of showing that the delay was the result of the defendant’s conduct or was otherwise justified.” Romes v. State, 356 Ark. 26, 36 , 144 S.W.3d 750, 757 (2004).

2005“Once the defendant presents a. prima facie case of a speedy-trial violation ... the State has the burden of showing that the delay was the result of the defendant’s conduct or was otherwise justified.” Romes v. State, 356 Ark. 26, 36 , 144 S.W.3d 750, 757 (2004).

1980The court reiterated the rule announced in Harkness v. Harrison, Judge, 266 Ark. 59 , 585 S.W. 2d 10 (1979) and Alexander v. State, 268 Ark. 384 , 598 S.W. 2d 395 (1980), that the terms of all of the various divisions of circuit court in a county must be counted under the speedy trial rule.

1980The court reiterated the rule announced in Harkness v. Harrison, Judge, 266 Ark. 59 , 585 S.W. 2d 10 (1979) and Alexander v. State, 268 Ark. 384 , 598 S.W. 2d 395 (1980), that the terms of all of the various divisions of circuit court in a county must be counted under the speedy trial rule.

2016Stated differently, Turner, not the State, must 9 Cite as 2016 Ark. 96 show that the speedy-trial rule was violated.

2016With the correct standard in mind, I will now consider the substance of Turner’s 10 Cite as 2016 Ark. 96 argument and whether he demonstrated that a speedy-trial violation occurred.

2013Cite as 2013 Ark. 503 a motion to dismiss on the ground of a speedy-trial violation; that the circuit court erred in denying relief on his claims of constitutional error; and that the circuit court did not make the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.3.

2013Arkansas Rules of 7 Cite as 2013 Ark. 503 Criminal Procedure 28.2 and 28.3 set out the calculation of time under the speedy-trial rule and authorize time periods to be excluded from calculation that result from necessary delays.

2010The United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) held that the constitutional right to a speedy trial, like any other fundamental constitutional right, may be waived.

2010The United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) held that the constitutional right to a speedy trial, like any other fundamental constitutional right, may be waived.

2003See Ibsen v. Plegge, 341 Ark. 225 , 15 S.W.3d 686 (2000).

2003See Ibsen v. Plegge, 341 Ark. 225 , 15 S.W.3d 686 (2000).

2002Hicks v. State, 305 Ark. 393 , 808 S.W.2d 348 (1991).

2002Hicks v. State, 305 Ark. 393 , 808 S.W.2d 348 (1991).

1997State v. Washington, 273 Ark. 82 , 617 S.W.2d 3 (1981); Ark.

1997State v. Washington, 273 Ark. 82 , 617 S.W.2d 3 (1981); Ark.