Case Name: The STATE of Arizona ex rel. Moise BERGER, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, the Honorable Howard V. Peterson, a judge thereof, and Arezki MOUALI, Real Party in Interest, Respondents
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arizona
Decision Date: 1975-02-21
Citations: 111 Ariz. 422
Docket Number: No. 11819-PR
Parties: The STATE of Arizona ex rel. Moise BERGER, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, the Honorable Howard V. Peterson, a judge thereof, and Arezki MOUALI, Real Party in Interest, Respondents.
Judges: CAMERON, C. J., and STRUCK-MEYER and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Arizona Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 422–422

Head Matter:
531 P.2d 1129
The STATE of Arizona ex rel. Moise BERGER, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, the Honorable Howard V. Peterson, a judge thereof, and Arezki MOUALI, Real Party in Interest, Respondents.
No. 11819-PR.
Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc.
Feb. 21, 1975.
Moise Berger, Maricopa County Atty., by Dennis W. Dairman, Deputy County Atty., Phoenix, for petitioner.
Harris & Peacock by Donald W. Harris, Phoenix, for real party in interest.

Opinion:
HAYS, Justice.
A petition for review was filed by the Maricopa County Attorney. Defense counsel had moved to dismiss the prosecution against the defendant on the grounds that the speedy trial provisions of Rule 8 of the 1973 Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A. R.S. had not been complied with. Based on the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Schultz v. Peterson, 22 Ariz.App. 205, 526 P.2d 412 (1974), the trial court granted the motion to dismiss. We granted the petition for review in order to bring this case into harmony with previous decisions of this court.
We have just published a case involving the two defendants with whom the defendant in the instant case was originally charged, Schultz and Aronson v. State, 111 Ariz. 421, 531 P.2d 1128 [filed February 19, 1975]. The facts and issues are much the same as those in this case, being controlled by our opinion in State ex rel. Berger v. Superior Court, 111 Ariz. 335, 529 P.2d 686 [filed December 20, 1974],
Remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
CAMERON, C. J., and STRUCK-MEYER and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur.