North Dakota Century Code
N.D. Cent. Code § 29-33-03 (2026)
When charges brought to trial - Dismissal
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ND-LEGndlegis.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Within ninety days after the receipt of the request and certificate by the court and prosecuting official or within such additional time as the court for good cause shown in open court may grant, the prisoner or the prisoner's counsel being present, the indictment, information, or complaint must 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 the attorney 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 any longer has jurisdiction thereof, nor may the untried indictment, information, or complaint be of any further force or effect, and the court shall dismiss it with prejudice.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: State v. Lafromboise, 2021 ND 80 (N.D. 2021).
State v. Lafromboise, 2021 ND 80 (N.D. 2021). “” N.D.C.C. § 29-33-03. This provision “‘requires pending charges against an incarcerated prisoner be tried within 90 days of the court’s receipt of a request for speedy trial or be dismissed with prejudice,’ but ‘the statute also allows the court, in its discretion, to grant the…”
State v. Moore, 2007 ND 7 (N.D. 2007). “[¶ 4] The Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act, codified in part under N.D.C.C. § 29-33-03, provides: Within ninety days after the receipt of the request and certificate by the court and prosecuting official or within such additional time as the court for good cause…”
State v. Ripley, 548 N.W.2d 24 (N.D. 1996). “On August 22, 1994, Ripley moved to dismiss the charge against him, contending, under N.D.C.C. § 29-33-03, he was not brought to trial within ninety days after the Burleigh County Court and the Burleigh County State’s Attorney received his request for disposition of the detainer.”
Donlin v. Donlin, 2007 ND 5 (N.D. 2007). “Section 29-33-03, in pertinent part, states: “Within ninety days after the receipt of the request and certificate by the court and prosecuting official or within such additional time as the court for good cause shown in open court may grant, the prisoner or the prisoner’s…”
Murchison v. State, 1998 ND 96 (N.D. 1998). “Murchison contends the trial court lost jurisdiction when he was not tried within ninety days after he requested a speedy trial under N.D.C.C. § 29-33-03 of the Uniform Mandatory , Disposition of Detainers Act.”
State v. Cain, 806 N.W.2d 597 (N.D. 2011). “]” N.D.C.C. § 29-33-03. [¶ 27] Section 29-33-01, N.”
State v. Carlson, 258 N.W.2d 253 (N.D. 1977). “el, filed a habeas corpus petition in the Burleigh County district court alleging a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial and noting that his counsel had “refused to protect petitioner’s constitutional rights where the authorities of Burleigh, Burke, and…”
State v. Foster, 560 N.W.2d 194 (N.D. 1997). “FACTS [¶ 2] On September 1,1994, while incarcerated at the North Dakota State Penitentiary for an unrelated charge, Mark Foster signed an “Inmate’s Notice of Detainer, Untried Indictment, Information, or Complaint” (the detainer) pursuant to the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of…”
State v. Olsen, 540 N.W.2d 149 (N.D. 1995). “Section 29-33-03, N.D.C.C., requires pending charges against an incarcerated prisoner be tried within 90 days of the court’s receipt of a request for speedy trial or be dismissed with prejudice.”
State v. Hinojosa, 798 N.W.2d 634 (N.D. 2011). “[¶ 8] The pertinent factors for determining whether an extension or continuance of a trial is for “good cause” under N.D.C.C. § 29-33-03 are: “(1) length of delay; (2) reason for delay; (3) defendant’s assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant.”
State v. Fulks, 1997 ND 143 (N.D. 1997). “[¶ 1] Richard Fulks appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss theft charges, asserting he was not brought to trial within 90 days as required by Section 29-33-03, N.D.C.C., of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act.”
In Interest of Nyflot, 340 N.W.2d 178 (N.D. 1983). “1977), this court was asked to construe § 29-33-03, N.D.C.C., which is part of North Dakota’s codification of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act.”
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.