Court Opinion

ID: 9659680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:52:27.22329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:10.540115
License: Public Domain

*652BIEGELMEIER, Judge
(concurring in reversal).
I concur in the reversal of the judgment and dismissal of the action by reason of the denial of defendant's right to a speedy trial as required by both the state and federal Constitutions. This resulted from the failure of state court officers to take proceedings to bring the criminal action to trial despite the persistent requests of defendant who was available in the state at all times. I do not, however, agree that defendant had any right to a concurrent sentence.
As the judges are not in agreement as to the grounds upon which the judgment should be reversed, it becomes unnecessary to express my views of the weight to be given to any of the four factors of the "balancing test" set out in Barker v. Wingo, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101. Under the circumstances, the state's attorney should have seasonably proceeded to take steps to bring the defendant to trial, and when the situation was brought to the attention of the trial court it should have directed the state's attorney to so proceed or dismiss the action.