Rueda v. State, 2012 Ark. 144

Rueda was arrested July 24, 2006 after a controlled-drug purchase.
An information filed Oct 31, 2006 charged delivery of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia; an amended information on Oct 4, 2007 added possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine.
Rueda was tried and convicted on all three offenses; total sentence 600 months’ imprisonment.
Rueda’s postconviction petition alleged ten claims, including ineffective assistance for not moving to dismiss for speedy trial.
The circuit court ruled on the speedy-trial issue in favor of the State and denied the remaining claims; final order entered Jan 13, 2011.
Rueda appeals contending his trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking dismissal based on a speedy-trial violation; the court affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to seek speedy-trial dismissal was ineffective assistance.	Rueda argues counsel should have moved to dismiss the possession-with-intent charge.	State contends Rule 28.2/run clock from arrest makes dismissal meritless; excludable periods render trial timely.	No, counsel not ineffective; excludable periods could be applied to all charges per Johnson.

Johnson v. State, 337 Ark. 486 (Ark. 1999) (excludable periods apply to all charges from same episode)
Camargo v. State, 346 Ark. 118 (Ark. 2001) (speedy-trial exclusions must be considered)
Callender v. State, 263 Ark. 217 (Ark. 1978) (distinguishing excludable-delay grounds in amendments)
Matthews v. State, 2011 Ark. 397 (Ark. 2011) (ineffective-assistance for meritless speedy-trial challenge)
Flanagan v. State, 368 Ark. 143 (Ark. 2006) (amendment of information and jurisdictional considerations)