Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.760 (2026)

Notice requesting early trial on pending charge

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      135.760 Notice requesting early trial on pending charge. (1) Any adult in the custody of the Department of Corrections or of the supervisory authority of a county pursuant to a commitment under ORS 137.124 (2) against whom there is pending at the time of commitment or against whom there is filed at any time during imprisonment, in any court of this state, an indictment, information or criminal complaint charging the adult in custody with the commission of a crime, may give written notice to the district attorney of the county in which the adult in custody is so charged requesting the district attorney to prosecute and bring the adult in custody to trial on the charge forthwith.

      (2) The notice provided for in subsection (1) of this section shall be signed by the adult in custody and set forth the place and term of imprisonment. A copy of the notice shall be sent to the court in which the adult in custody has been charged by indictment, information or complaint. [Formerly 134.510; 1987 c.320 §19; 1995 c.423 §9b; 2019 c.213 §15]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases, 1979–2020 · leading case: State v. Waechter, 986 P.2d 1281 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Waechter, 986 P.2d 1281 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 48× “On August 7, 1996, while incarcerated at Eastern Oregon Correctional Institute (EOCI), defendant mailed a speedy trial demand to the court and the district attorney, in accordance with ORS 135.760. [1] The district attorney received the demand on August 13 and filed a motion for…”
State v. Person, 853 P.2d 813 (Or. 1993). · cites it 28× “On January 30, 1990, the Linn County District Attorney received defendant's "Speedy Trial Notice," in which defendant requested trial on the Linn County charges within 90 days pursuant to ORS 135.760 [1] and 135.763(1), discussed infra.”
State v. Pinnell, 877 P.2d 635 (Or. 1994). · cites it 17× “ORS 135.760 provides: "(1) Any inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections against whom there is pending at the time of commitment or against whom there is filed at any time during imprisonment, in any court of this state, an indictment, information or criminal…”
State v. Hunter, 850 P.2d 366 (Or. 1993). · cites it 9× “The statutory provisions pertinent to this proceeding are ORS 135.760, 135.763, and 135.765. Those statutes provide inmates in the custody of the Department of Corrections a right to a speedy trial on criminal charges pending against the inmates in Oregon courts.”
State v. Gilliland, 752 P.2d 1255 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 10× “The sole contention is that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial under ORS 135.760. 1 We reverse. An information of felony was filed in district court on January 20,1986, charging defendant with being an exconvict in possession of a firearm.”
State v. Person, 831 P.2d 700 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 11× “Defendant appeals from his convictions, assigning as error the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for failure to bring him to trial within 90 days after the date on which he gave notice to the district attorney pursuant to ORS 135.760. We reverse. Defendant was…”
State v. Wideman, 124 P.3d 1271 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “On February 21, 2003, the district attorney received a notice from defendant requesting a trial pursuant to ORS 135.760. 1 ORS 135.763 requires a defendant who makes such a request to be brought to trial within 90 days of receipt of such notice, with certain exceptions.”
State v. Baranovich, 295 P.3d 58 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 12× “747 must be explicit and not implicit and that, accordingly, (2) the trial *103 court erred in treating the delay caused by her failure to appear and failure to demand trial under ORS 135.”
State v. Tatarinov, 155 P.3d 67 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “ORS 135.760 -135.765. We affirm. The parties have stipulated to the following facts.”
State v. Ayers, 126 P.3d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 9× “747 (or its direct statutory antecedents) and statutes analogous to the IAD provisions, specifically ORS 135.760 to 135.765. ORS 135.760, the “intrastate” analog to the “trial demand” provisions of the LAD, provides: “(1) Any inmate in the custody of the Department of…”
State v. Ayers, 143 P.3d 251 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “First, we noted that, although we had not addressed the precise issue presented here with respect to the IAD’s effect on speedy trial rights under ORS 135.”
State v. Benner, 288 P.3d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 11× “In this criminal case, defendant moved to dismiss the indictment against him on the ground that the state failed to bring him to trial within 90 days of receipt of his request for a speedy trial, as required by ORS 135.760 to 135.765, set out below. The trial court denied the…”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.760(1) — 10 cases
State v. Pinnell, 877 P.2d 635 (Or. 1994). “ORS 135.760 provides: "(1) Any inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections against whom there is pending at the time of commitment or against whom there is filed at any time during imprisonment, in any court of this state, an indictment, information or criminal…”
State v. Baranovich, 295 P.3d 58 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “747 must be explicit and not implicit and that, accordingly, (2) the trial *103 court erred in treating the delay caused by her failure to appear and failure to demand trial under ORS 135.”
State v. Person, 831 P.2d 700 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “Defendant appeals from his convictions, assigning as error the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for failure to bring him to trial within 90 days after the date on which he gave notice to the district attorney pursuant to ORS 135.760. We reverse. Defendant was…”
State v. Tatarinov, 155 P.3d 67 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “ORS 135.760 -135.765. We affirm. The parties have stipulated to the following facts.”
State v. Gutierrez, 11 P.3d 690 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.760(2) — 4 cases
State v. Pinnell, 877 P.2d 635 (Or. 1994). “ORS 135.760 provides: "(1) Any inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections against whom there is pending at the time of commitment or against whom there is filed at any time during imprisonment, in any court of this state, an indictment, information or criminal…”
State v. Person, 853 P.2d 813 (Or. 1993). “On January 30, 1990, the Linn County District Attorney received defendant's "Speedy Trial Notice," in which defendant requested trial on the Linn County charges within 90 days pursuant to ORS 135.760 [1] and 135.763(1), discussed infra.”
State v. Hunter, 850 P.2d 366 (Or. 1993). “The statutory provisions pertinent to this proceeding are ORS 135.760, 135.763, and 135.765. Those statutes provide inmates in the custody of the Department of Corrections a right to a speedy trial on criminal charges pending against the inmates in Oregon courts.”
State v. Holden, 598 P.2d 1252 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
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.