State v. BrownState v. Brown
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Gordon
Thе State of Arizona appeals from an order dismissing with prejudice the prosecution of Wendell Brown for two counts of recеiving stolen property and one count of conspiracy to receive stolen property. The trial court found that the defendant had been denied his right to a speedy trial under Rule 8 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. We take jurisdiction of this case рursuant to Rule 47(e)(5), Rules of the Supreme Court.
Brown was arraigned on April 8, 1974 and released on his own recognizance. A Notice of Chаnge of Judge was filed pursuant to Criminal Rule 10.2 on April 9th by a co-defendаnt. The case was transferred to another judge on April 18th. Because of the complicated nature of a motion to suppress certain evidence obtained through wiretaps the trial сourt issued an order on May 29th “finding 30 days are excluded under Rule 8.4” and giving the рarties an additional two weeks in which to file their memoranda. Thе motion to suppress was denied on July 8th, but according to minute entriеs a trial date *403 was not set because of the “legal [wiretaps] issues that both counsel and the Court felt ought to be resolved by an appellate court.” After the Court of Appeals declined to accept jurisdiction of a special action on September 23rd the trial court concluded that the speedy trial time limits contained in Rule 8.2 had not been tolled while the appellate court considered the petition and thus recommended that thе defendant file a motion to dismiss. The motion was made on October 3rd and granted on October 4th.
We find that the trial court properly grаnted the motion to dismiss. The nine day delay caused by the change of j‘udge was an “excluded period” under Rule 8.4. State ex rel. Berger v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 111 Ariz. 335, 529 P.2d 686 (1974). An additional thirty days were еxcluded by minute entry for the filing of memoranda in connection with the mоtion to suppress. This exclusion was made by the j‘udge and was not occasioned by or requested by the defendant and cannot be сonsidered as benefitting the defendant. This thirty day period, therefore, is not an exludable period under Rule 8.4. The period between August 28th, when Brown’s petition for special action was filed, and Septеmber 23rd, when the Court of Appeals declined to accept jurisdiction, is excludable under Rule 8.4 as a delay “occasionеd by or on behalf of the defendant.”
Because the defendant was not in custody, Rule 82(c) required in this case that he “be tried * * * within 90 days from the date of his arraignment before the trial court.” After deducting the exсluded periods mentioned above, the motion to dismiss was granted оne hundred forty-four days after the defendant’s arraignment, well beyond the speedy trial limit.
When a violation of Rule 8 time limits is established, the trial сourt may dismiss the prosecution with or without prejudice, depending upon the facts of the case. State ex rel. Berger v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, supra. The denial of the defеndant’s motion in this case occurred before the date of оur decision in State ex rel. Berger v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, supra, and minute entries indicate that the trial judge was undеr the incorrect impression that he did not have the option to dismiss the prosecution without prejudice.
The matter is, thereforе, remanded to the Superior Court for a determination as to whеther the dismissal of the prosecution is to be with or without prejudice.
CAMERON, C. J., STRUCKMEYER, V. C. J., and HAYS and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.