 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
GARCIA v. STATE11/14/1997
out further tolling, the 120 days allowed by Rule 45 for bringing the defendants to trial would have expired on June 10, 1996. The defendants were notified in mid-May that their cases would be called for trial on May 28, 1996 — a trial date that was within the limits of Rule 45.
Within days of receiving these trial notices, each of the defendants moved to dismiss their case for violation of Rule 45. Under Rule 45(d)(1), the defendants' motions to dismiss tolled the running of Rule 45. See State v. Angaiak, 847 P.2d 1068, 1072 n. 5 (Alaska App. 1993). In the end, the defendants never
went to trial: after the district court denied their Rule 45 motions, the defendants entered Cooksey pleas (reserving their right to raise their Rule 45 claim on appeal). See Cooksey v. State, 524 P.2d 1251, 1255-57 (Alaska 1974).
For these reasons, we conclude that Rule 45 was not violated in the defendants' cases. Our reasoning is different from the reasoning employed by the district court, but we are authorized to affirm the district court's decision on any legal ground revealed by the record. Rutherford v. State, 605 P.2d 16, 21 n. 12 (Alaska 1979); Ransom v. Haner, 362 P.2d 282, 285 (Alaska 1961); Millman v. State, 841 P.2d 190, 195 (Alaska App. 1992).
The judgements of the district court are AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|