DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Brannin, 514 P.2d 446.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
  • State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
    ¶59 In addressing Smith’s speedy trial claim we must assess the “[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.” Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972); -29, -50 (1973) (applying the Barker factors to analyze a speedy trial claim).
  • State v. Mata 609 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Mata 609 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Roberson 576 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Roberson 576 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    He contends that the above rule was amended in 1975
  • State v. Parker 567 P.2d 319 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Parker 567 P.2d 319 Ariz. 1977
    and there was no error on the part of the trial court which refused to dismiss the charges.
  • State v. Wright 553 P.2d 667 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Wright 553 P.2d 667 Ariz. 1976
    188 , 38 L.Ed.2d 183 (1973)
  • State v. Bollander 537 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Bollander 537 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Rose 535 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Rose 535 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Rogers 521 P.2d 1128 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Rogers 521 P.2d 1128 Ariz. 1974
    Applying the four-pronged balancing test of Barker v. Wingo, supra, , it is clear that defendant was not denied a speedy trial.
  • State v. Lemon 521 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Lemon 521 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1974
    2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), , it is clear that appellant has not been denied a speedy trial.
  • State v. Ballinger 520 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Ballinger 520 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1974
    2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972)
  • State v. Lee 519 P.2d 56 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Lee 519 P.2d 56 Ariz. 1974
    We have held that the right to a speedy trial commences at the time the accused has been held to answer by a magistrate, , or after an indictment has been returned
  • State v. Mathis 517 P.2d 1250 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Mathis 517 P.2d 1250 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Yanich 516 P.2d 308 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Yanich 516 P.2d 308 Ariz. 1973
    Stakes v. Shovlin, 464 F.2d 1211 (3rd Cir. 1972).”