Court Opinion

ID: 9875348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:30:32.826571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:00.143576
License: Public Domain

Hughes, J.,
dissenting.
| Respectfully, this case must be distinguished from State v. Romar and is much closer to State v. Baptiste.
*310A distinction should be drawn between the situation where a properly noticed defendant voluntarily fails to appear in court (Romar) and the current situation where it was physically impossible for the defendant to appear because he was in federal custody. This fact -was known to all and appears in the minutes of court. The defendant even provided his attorney with án affidavit stating same so that his attorney could continue to represent him in his absence. This is not a situation where the state has no duty to locate a truly “absent” defendant pursuant to Romar.