 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Petty8/3/2004
ffidavits or testimony of court clerk to prove scheduling of cases on docket).
In the present case, the State was required to show that the April 1 through 11, 2003, jury panel was the next reasonably available jury term following Petty's reappearance in court on February 24 and/or that the July 14 bench trial was the next reasonably available bench trial date following Petty's reappearance in court on March 20. In Letscher, the court bailiff testified at the hearing on the defendant's motion to discharge regarding the next jury term and the first available trial date following the defendant's reappearance. In the present case, we have no such testimony. The hearing on Petty's motion to discharge consisted simply of arguments by counsel and colloquy between the court and counsel. We find no evidence in the record sufficient to prove either that the April 1 through 11 jury panel was the next reasonably available jury term following Petty's reappearance in court on February 24 or that the July 14 bench trial was the next reasonably available bench trial date following Petty's reappearance in court on March 20. Accordingly, we find that neither one of these periods operated to toll the running of the speedy trial time pursuant to Letscher. However, as we noted above, the speedy trial time was tolled on July 2, 2003, when Petty filed his motion to discharge and his motion to suppress, at which time there were 7 days remaining for the State to bring Petty to trial. Those 7 days will still be available to the State upon the issuance of our mandate in the present appeal. In other words, the time during which Petty's motion to discharge has been pending, including in this court, is also excluded, as will be the time required to bring Petty's still-pending motion to suppress to final disposition. See State v. Dailey, 10 Neb. App. 793, 639 N.W.2d 141 (2002). We conclude, albeit for different reasons than did the county and district courts, that Petty's statutory right to a speedy trial has not been violated. Where the record adequately demonstrates that the decision of a trial court is correct, although such correctness is based on a ground or reason different from that assigned by the trial court, an appellate court will affirm. State v. Gamez-Lira, 264 Neb. 96, 645 N.W.2d 562 (2002).
CONCLUSION
The district court did not err in affirming the decision of the county court denying Petty's motion to discharge.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Nebraska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|