Court Opinion

ID: 9775579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:04:05.26347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:29.091490
License: Public Domain

BREWER, C. J.,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s analysis and the result that it reaches in this case. I write separately to emphasize my disagreement with defendant’s argument that our decisions in State v. Anglin, 227 Or App 325, 206 P3d 193, rev den, 346 Or 364 (2009), and State v. Bayer, 229 Or App 267, 211 P3d 327, rev den, 347 Or 446 (2009), are inconsistent with each other and that, without citing Anglin, we nevertheless implicitly overruled our decision in that case three months later in Bayer.
The short answer to defendant’s argument is that, in Anglin, unlike in Bayer, the state did not dismiss a previously *274filed citation before filing an information on the same charge. In Bayer, the trial court had dismissed the original citation, and eight months later, the state filed an information charging the defendant with the same offense. 229 Or App at 271. It followed, we concluded, that, for statutory speedy trial purposes, the relevant prosecution commenced with the second charging instrument. Id. at 278.
In Anglin, by contrast, the underlying citations were not dismissed when, on the same day that the citations required the defendant to appear in court, the district attorney “filed an information charging [the] defendant with the same offenses that he already had been cited for[.]” 227 Or App at 327. The information “included references to the citation numbers, again indicating that the information was intended by the district attorney to be part of the prosecution that was commenced by execution of the citations.” Id. at 330. As a consequence, we concluded that, for speedy trial purposes, the defendant’s failure to appear on the citations was a relevant consideration in evaluating whether the defendant had consented to the delay in his ultimate prosecution on the information. Id. at 332-33. In short, in Anglin, there was a single, continuous, prosecution whereas, in Bayer, there were two. Hence, the decisions in those cases are harmonious.