Opinion ID: 1191913
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: C.R. 48(a)(1)-(2).

Text: On its face, I.C.R. 48(a)(2) has two requirements: (1) that dismissal serve the ends of justice, and (2) that dismissal serve the effective administration of the court's business. Avelar does not address how the effective administration of the court's business will be served by dismissing this case. Indeed he acknowledges that a dismissal under this rule would not bar reprosecution. I.C.R. 48(c). Avelar instead focuses on the harsh personal consequences of the conviction. Rule 48(a)(2) is not the vehicle for such a challenge, particularly following an unsuccessful appeal. Although Rule 48 does not contain an explicit time limitation, the language indicates at least an implicit limitation. The likelihood that a dismissal will serve the effective administration of the court's business decreases as the case proceeds to a final judgment and disappears following an unsuccessful appeal. The district court correctly denied Avelar's Rule 48 motion to dismiss.