 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Melson10/25/1999
inary hearing on the arrest warrants was ever held.
The defendant's issue regards a violation of Rule 5 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states in applicable part:
Any defendant arrested prior to indictment or presentment . . . shall be entitled to a preliminary hearing upon request therefor, whether the grand jury of the county be in session or not. If the defendant is indicted during the period of time in which his preliminary hearing is being continued, or at any time before accused has been afforded a preliminary hearing on a warrant, whether at the defendant's own request or that of the prosecutor, the defendant may dismiss the indictment upon motion to the court. Provided, however, that no such Motion to Dismiss shall be granted after the expiration of thirty days from the date of the defendant's arrest. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 5(e).
The defendant had thirty days from his arrest January 9, 1996, to file a motion to dismiss and request a preliminary hearing. The defendant identifies nothing in the record that indicates he filed such a motion in the allotted time. Further, this Court's review of the technical record revealed no such filing nor any indication of bad faith on behalf of the State which would allow for an extension. See Moore v. State, 578 S.W.2d 78 (Tenn. 1979). Accordingly, we find that the defendant failed to properly request a preliminary hearing and conclude that the issue is without merit.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the decision of the trial court.
JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, Judge
CONCUR:
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|