Court Opinion

ID: 9538558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:37:42.793514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:58.720476
License: Public Domain

FELDMAN, Vice Chief Justice,
specially concurring.
I agree with the conclusion reached by the court and with much of its analytical *195framework. Eroded by subsequent decisions, Hinson evidently has not accomplished our goal of prompt trial in DUI cases. The cases that have come before us — both published and unpublished — demonstrate that Hinson has not brought speedy trials and occasionally has resulted in unwarranted dismissals of charges and undoubtedly has spawned a great deal of collateral litigation. Hence, I join in the holding to overrule that portion of Hinson.
I write separately, however, because I believe many of the statements and grounds advanced in the majority opinion are matters of adjudicative fact neither established in the record nor the subject of judicial notice. Also, I share many of the concerns described by Justice Cameron in his dissent. Thus, I merely concur in the result.