Opinion ID: 2824314
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: ¶11 Maloney presents the question of whether his right to a speedy trial was violated by pre-trial and pre-sentencing delays. However, as discussed below, we recently adopted a new standard for analyzing post-trial, pre-sentencing delays that is distinct from our pre-trial delay analysis. We therefore reframe the issues presented as follows: 1. Was Maloney’s right to a speedy trial violated as a result of excessive pre-trial delays caused by the State? 2. Was Maloney’s right to due process violated as a result of excessive post-trial, pre-sentencing delays caused by the State? STANDARDS OF REVIEW ¶12 We review a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss in a criminal case de novo for correctness. State v. Betterman, 2015 MT 39, ¶ 11, 378 Mont. 182, 342 P.3d 971. We will affirm a district court if it reached the correct result, even if it reached that result for an incorrect reason. Betterman, ¶ 11.