 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Manzanares5/20/1996
been prepared twice for trial, would have to provide only deposition testimony because of scheduling conflicts. In balancing the Barker factors, the court held that "the evils of delay . . . [worked] not only to the Defendant's prejudice but to the detriment of the court's goal for prompt Justice." Again, we find the factual findings of the district court are supported by substantial evidence, and we agree with the court's weighing of the Barker factors. Therefore, we affirm the dismissal for violation of Manzanares's right to a speedy trial.
{11} Conclusion. We affirm the district court with regard to the affect of a Rule 5-604 extension on lower court review of speedy trial claims. We also affirm the district court's dismissal of the action as a violation of Manzanares's constitutional right to a speedy trial.
{12} IT IS SO ORDERED.
RICHARD E. RANSOM, Justice
WE CONCUR:
STANLEY F. FROST, Chief Justice
JOSEPH F. BACA, Justice
GENE E. FRANCHINI, Justice
PAMELA B. MINZNER, Justice
|