Opinion ID: 2086432
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: attached illustrative graphic

Text: THIS TIME NOT IN ISSUE OR DISPOSITIVE BY ITSELF HERE. NOR WAS IT LITIGATED BELOW OR CONCEDED BY THE PEOPLE AS ATTRIBUTABLE SOLELY TO THEM: 8/02/89 8/04/89 9/14/89 10/16/89 10/20/89 12/08/89 12/12/89 Felony Court Defendant Defendant Court Grand Jury Arrest complaint releases failed to arrested dismissed indictment warrant filed defendant appear; on new new signed Court charge charge Adjourned issued and to arrest released 9/14/89 warrant defendant Continued. . . THE ISOLATED 69 DAYS OF LACK OF POLICE DUE DILIGENCE DECLARED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS ONLY AND THE SOLE BASIS FOR REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL IN THIS CASE: 12/19/89 2/26/90 Arrest Police warrant Officer issued Rice assigned to execute warrant on defendant Continued. . . CONCEDED OR DECLARED DUE DILIGENCE FOUND BY ALL COURTS: 3/01/90 4/11/90 5/16/90 5/30/90 6/08/90 6/21/90 7/12/90 10/04/90 10/05/90 10/26/90 Call to Visit Computr DMV Visit DMV Dept. Tip recd Police People Dept. def's check check def's check of on def's arrest file of address address Corr. location defendnt statemnt Corr. check on of Check warrant readiness post office