Court Opinion

ID: 9767042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:07:02.472239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:39.372674
License: Public Domain

DIAL, Justice,
dissenting.
The trial judge heard the testimony of the defendant and the deputy sheriff who was assigned the duty of trying to locate the defendant. Apparently the judge believed that due diligence was exercised in trying to determine the location of the defendant under Section 4(4)(B) of the Speedy Trial Act. It is undisputed that the period of delay resulted from the absence of the defendant because his location was unknown.
There was ample evidence upon which the trial judge could base his ruling. I believe we’ should respect and affirm that *267ruling rather than substitute ours derived from reading a cold record.
I must dissent from the otherwise well-written majority opinion.