request for final disposition.
Whenever a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a penal or correctional
institution of this state, and whenever during the continuance of the term of imprisonment
there is pending in any jurisdiction of this state any untried indictment, information or
complaint on the basis of which a detainer has been lodged against the prisoner, he shall
be brought to trial within one hundred and eighty (180) days after he shall have caused to
be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting
officer's jurisdiction written notice of the place of his imprisonment and his request for a
final disposition to be made of the indictment, information or complaint; provided that for
good cause shown in open court, the prisoner or his counsel being present, the court
having jurisdiction of the matter may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance.
Effective: June 17, 1978
History: Created 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 78, sec. 7, effective June 17, 1978.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case:
Dunaway v. Commonwealth, 60 S.W.3d 563 (Ky. 2001).
Dunaway v. Commonwealth, 60 S.W.3d 563 (Ky. 2001).
· cites it 26× “In this matter of right appeal, Dunaway argues that these convictions should be dismissed with prejudice because his right to a speedy trial— as articulated in KRS 500.110, Section 11 of the Kentucky Constitution, and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution — was…”
Darcy v. Commonwealth, 441 S.W.3d 77 (Ky. 2014).
· cites it 42× “In doing so, we conclude that a continuance of the joint trial requested by a defendant, so long as it is reasonable, is included within the scope of the “elastic” clause of KRS 500.110, allowing extension of the statutory speedy-trial time period.”
Miller v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 690 (Ky. 2009).
· cites it 12× “Sixth Amendment Appellant next alleges that his constitutional right to a fast and speedy trial, enumerated by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and KRS 500.110, was violated. We disagree. Under both the United States and Kentucky Constitutions, a defendant's…”
Goben v. Commonwealth, 503 S.W.3d 890 (Ky. 2016).
· cites it 10× “At that same May 12 pretrial conference, the Commonwealth acknowledged that Goben had moved pro se in February for a speedy trial pursuant to KRS 500.110. That statute permits an incarcerated person subject to a detainer to request a trial of the matter giving rise to the…”
Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2004).
· cites it 4× “2d 158 (1980) (circuit court without jurisdiction to try incarcerated defendant more than 180 days after motion for final disposition was properly filed under KRS 500.110); Crowder v. Schlitz Brewing Co.”
Rosen v. Watson, 103 S.W.3d 25 (Ky. 2003).
· cites it 24× “After the Boyd Circuit Court denied his motion to dismiss for failure to comply with his request for final disposition, KRS 500.110, Appellee petitioned the Court of Appeals for relief pursuant to CR 76.”
Stacy v. Commonwealth, 396 S.W.3d 787 (Ky. 2013).
· cites it 7× “(b), alleging that the trial court erroneously: (1) violated his due process rights by replaying witness testimony during the jury’s deliberations in his absence, (2) violated his right to conflict-free counsel by permitting Department of Public Advocacy (DPA) Attorneys to…”
Donahoo v. Dortch, 128 S.W.3d 491 (Ky. 2004).
· cites it 11× “Appellant, who was serving a prison term at the time of the indictment, alleged that he was not brought to trial within one hundred and eighty (180) days after he filed a request pursuant to KRS 500.110 for trial on the indictment, and therefore, he asserts that he was entitled…”
Rushin v. Commonwealth, 931 S.W.2d 456 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 11× “450 and KRS 500.110, both providing for a “trial within .”
Gabow v. Commonwealth, 34 S.W.3d 63 (Ky. 2000).
· cites it 2× “On May 12, 1997, Cecil filed a pro se statutory speedy trial demand under KRS 500.110. 4 Meanwhile, McMillen, who was a juvenile when the murder was committed, had filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in the Court of Appeals 5 challenging the constitutionality of KRS 635.”
Huddleston v. Jennings, 723 S.W.2d 381 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 5× “The petitioner contends that the Clark Circuit Court has lost jurisdiction to try him on these offenses because more than 180 days had elapsed from the date he requested a final disposition of the charges against him pursuant to KRS 500.110. Insofar as the record before us…”
Thacker v. Commonwealth, 115 S.W.3d 834 (Ky. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “2 Having concluded that Thacker was not entitled to dismissal of the charges pursuant to KRS 500.110 and that his convictions were supported by the evidence, we affirm.”
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.