Opinion ID: 4584154
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s April 22, 2019, order denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss the indictment is hereby affirmed. Affirmed. 12 It is not necessary that we determine whether the June and/or October 2017 terms of court were unexcused in order to resolve the question of whether the three-term rule was violated in this case. We observe that the State was “entitled to reindict after a nolle prosequi if 13 the prosecution can conduct the trial within the constraints of the three-term rule.” Carrico, 189 W. Va. at 45, 427 S.E.2d at 479. Having determined that three unexcused terms had not passed without a trial prior to the dismissal of the original indictment, the State was entitled to reindict petitioner. 16