135.746 Time
period within which trial must commence. (1) Except as provided in ORS 135.748:
(a) A trial in
which the most serious charge alleged in the charging instrument is designated
by statute as a misdemeanor must commence within two years from the date of the
filing of the charging instrument.
(b) A trial in
which the most serious charge alleged in the charging instrument is designated
by statute as a felony must commence within three years from the date of the
filing of the charging instrument.
(c) A trial in
which two or more charges have been consolidated pursuant to ORS 132.560 must
commence within the applicable time period required in this subsection for the
most serious offense alleged in the charging instrument.
(d) A joint trial
in which two or more defendants are charged in the same charging instrument
must commence within the applicable time period required in this subsection for
the most serious offense alleged in the charging instrument.
(2) The time
limits required in subsection (1) of this section cease to apply to a defendant
who fails to appear at the date and time scheduled for trial.
(3) If a trial
date is scheduled by the court for a defendant represented by counsel and
neither the defendant nor the defendant’s counsel objects within seven days of
the notice of the trial date to the fact that the scheduled trial date is not
within the time limit required in subsection (1) of this section, the time
limit is extended until the scheduled trial date, and may be further extended
as provided in ORS 135.748. [2014 c.73 §1]
Note: 135.746, 135.748 and 135.752 were
enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but were not added to or made a
part of ORS chapter 135 or any series therein by legislative action. See
Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.
135.747 [Formerly 134.120; repealed by
2013 c.431 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2019–2024 · leading case:
State v. Krieger, 473 P.3d 550 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Krieger, 473 P.3d 550 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 12× “Before trial, defendant filed a motion to dismiss this case on speedy trial grounds, asserting his rights under ORS 135.746,2 the state constitutional right to a speedy trial embodied in Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution,3 and his rights secured by the Sixth…”
State v. McGee, 437 P.3d 238 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 11× “The question presented in this case is whether a stay requested by defendant and granted by the trial court, which stayed the case pending resolution of a mandamus proceeding in the Supreme Court, falls within one of those exclusions.”
State v. Shelby, 497 P.3d 772 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 3× “Defendant contends that the trial court erred in (1) granting the state’s motion to admit his inculpatory statements made during his jail dis- ciplinary proceeding; and (2) denying his motion to dismiss his case as untimely under the speedy-trial requirements of ORS 135.746. We…”
Benjamin v. O'Donnell, 372 Or. 764 (Or. 2024).
· cites it 2× “290 relies on the “speedy-trial statutes” enacted in 2014: ORS 135.746 to 135.752. But ORS 136.290 and the speedy-trial statutes differ in significant ways.”
Benjamin v. O'Donnell, 372 Or. 764 (Or. 2024).
· cites it 2× “290 relies on the “speedy-trial statutes” enacted in 2014: ORS 135.746 to 135.752. But ORS 136.290 and the speedy-trial statutes differ in significant ways.”
Betschart v. Garrett (D. Or. 2023).
· cites it 2× “ORS § 135.746. For a felony, the time period is three years.”
State v. Ruiz, 333 Or. App. 541 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “See ORS 135.746(1) Nonprecedential Memo Op: 333 Or App 541 (2024) 543 (a) (requiring a misdemeanor case to be brought to trial within two years).”
State v. Melecio, 507 P.3d 764 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“ORS 135.746 requires the state to bring a defendant to trial within two years, but the period of time “during which the defendant’s location is unknown and * * * cannot be deter- mined by due diligence” is excluded from that time period.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.746(1) — 1 case
State v. Ruiz, 333 Or. App. 541 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“See ORS 135.746(1) Nonprecedential Memo Op: 333 Or App 541 (2024) 543 (a) (requiring a misdemeanor case to be brought to trial within two years).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.746(1)(a) — 6 cases
State v. Krieger, 473 P.3d 550 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“Before trial, defendant filed a motion to dismiss this case on speedy trial grounds, asserting his rights under ORS 135.746,2 the state constitutional right to a speedy trial embodied in Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution,3 and his rights secured by the Sixth…”
State v. McGee, 437 P.3d 238 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“The question presented in this case is whether a stay requested by defendant and granted by the trial court, which stayed the case pending resolution of a mandamus proceeding in the Supreme Court, falls within one of those exclusions.”
Benjamin v. O'Donnell, 372 Or. 764 (Or. 2024).
“290 relies on the “speedy-trial statutes” enacted in 2014: ORS 135.746 to 135.752. But ORS 136.290 and the speedy-trial statutes differ in significant ways.”
State v. Shelby, 497 P.3d 772 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Defendant contends that the trial court erred in (1) granting the state’s motion to admit his inculpatory statements made during his jail dis- ciplinary proceeding; and (2) denying his motion to dismiss his case as untimely under the speedy-trial requirements of ORS 135.746. We…”
Benjamin v. O'Donnell, 372 Or. 764 (Or. 2024).
“290 relies on the “speedy-trial statutes” enacted in 2014: ORS 135.746 to 135.752. But ORS 136.290 and the speedy-trial statutes differ in significant ways.”
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.