State v. Straughan, 327 P.3d 1172

Background

Defendant was charged with punitive contempt (MI080265) arising from violation of a security release; related misdemeanor charges from 2007–2008 (assault, menacing, harassment, DUII) proceeded in overlapping cases and were sometimes consolidated or ordered to “track.”
The contempt information was filed May 20, 2008; trial occurred January 3–4, 2011, a 959-day/approximately 31-month span. Defendant conceded 326 days of delay he requested or consented to, leaving 633 days of unconsented delay.
Significant scheduling events: the court ordered the contempt case to track a menacing case; the state obtained two setovers for the menacing case (totaling 205 days) because witnesses were unavailable; defendant moved for and pursued settlement conferences and changed counsel during the period.
Defendant moved to dismiss under former ORS 135.747 for lack of a speedy trial; the trial court denied the motion and proceeded to try the contempt bench trial (resulting in a contempt finding and $227 fine); related charges were tried to a jury and resulted in acquittal.
On appeal, the court had to decide (1) whether the 2013 repeal of the former speedy-trial statute applied to appeals pending on the repeal date and (2) whether, under former ORS 135.747, the unconsented and unjustified delay required dismissal (and whether the state showed sufficient reason under ORS 135.750 to proceed).
The court held the repeal did not apply to this appeal, found the state failed to justify a substantial portion of the delay (notably the 205-day tracking delay), concluded the remaining 633-day unconsented delay (including an unjustified ~7-month portion) was unreasonable, and reversed for dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Straughan)	Held
Whether the 2013 repeal of former ORS 135.747 applies to appeals pending on April 1, 2014	Repeal governs all “criminal proceedings,” so statute no longer applies	Repeal should not apply to appeals of pre-repeal denials because that would retroactively foreclose review and raise due process concerns	Repeal does not apply to this appeal; former ORS 135.747 controls
Which periods of delay count as requested/consented by defendant under former ORS 135.747	Many scheduling events (including tracking and court-ordered setovers) were effectively consented to by defendant	Consent requires an express request/express agreement; court orders or silence do not equal consent	Defendant consented to specific delays (settlement conference, counsel substitution, two explicit setovers) totaling 326 days; he did not consent to the 205-day tracking delay
Whether the remaining unconsented delay was reasonable	State: scheduling conflicts and witness unavailability justified much of the delay	Defendant: the unconsented 633-day delay (especially the 205-day portion) was unjustified and rendered the total delay unreasonable	The unconsented delay (633 days) exceeded ordinary expectations for misdemeanor-analog contempt proceedings; the 205-day tracking delay was unjustified and the total was unreasonable—dismissal required
Whether the state showed ‘‘sufficient reason’’ under ORS 135.750 to continue the case despite unreasonable delay	State did not make or failed to articulate sufficient reasons on the record	Defendant argued the state failed its burden to show sufficient reason	Court: state failed to show sufficient reason; trial court erred in denying dismissal

Key Cases Cited

State v. Johnson, 339 Or. 69 (Oregon 2005) (framework for speedy-trial review under former ORS 135.747)
State v. Glushko/Little, 351 Or. 297 (Oregon 2011) (defendant consents only by express agreement to postponement)
State v. Adams, 339 Or. 104 (Oregon 2005) (statute-of-limitations as a marker of outer limit for reasonableness; silence does not equal consent)
State v. Meyers, 153 Or. App. 551 (Oregon Ct. App. 1998) (avoid retroactive application of changes that raise due-process problems)
State v. Peterson, 252 Or. App. 424 (Oregon Ct. App. 2012) (19-month total delay with a significant unjustified portion required dismissal)
State v. Bellah, 242 Or. App. 73 (Oregon Ct. App. 2011) (state bears burden to justify cumulative delay; failure defeats ORS 135.750 continuation)
State v. Garcia/Jackson, 207 Or. App. 438 (Oregon Ct. App. 2006) (delay roughly equal to statute of limitations indicates unreasonable delay)