Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): for Timely Disposition” adopted by the Oregon Judicial Conference, “‘90% of all misdemeanors, infractions and other nonfelony cases should be adjudicated *** within 90 days from the date of arraignment, 98% within 180 days and 100% within one year, except for exceptional cases in which continuing review should occur.’” Brunoe, 204 Or App at 756 (quoting State v. Emery, 318 Or 460, 471 n 17, 869 P2d 859 (1994)). Simply put, we have not found an appellate decision in which the court upheld the denial of a motion to dismiss under ORS 135.747 in a misdemeanor case where, as here, the cumulative period of delay attributable to the state exceeded 15 months and where a significant part of the delay was determined to be unreasonable. See State v. Dobson, 240 Or App 315, 245 P3d 704 (2010) (<HOLDING>); Ton, 237 Or App at 453 (holding that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that dismissal of indictment was abuse of discretion when delay attributable to the government was twelve months (B) holding only two months of four year and eight month delay attributable to commonwealth where defendant fled and concealed his whereabouts for four years and six months (C) holding that petitioners unexplained hence unjustified delay of at least six months was not reasonable for purposes of california law (D) holding that dismissal was required where overall length of prosecution was 16 months state was responsible for 13 months of delay and six months of that delay was due to simple neglect (E) holding that a 15month delay of which four months were unexplained was reasonable in a felony prosecution
Output (English): holding that petitioners unexplained hence unjustified delay of at least six months was not reasonable for purposes of california law