ORS 135.760
Notice requesting early trial on pending charge


(1)

Any adult in the custody of the Department of Corrections or of the supervisory authority of a county pursuant to a commitment under ORS 137.124 (Commitment of defendant to Department of Corrections or county) (2) against whom there is pending at the time of commitment or against whom there is filed at any time during imprisonment, in any court of this state, an indictment, information or criminal complaint charging the adult in custody with the commission of a crime, may give written notice to the district attorney of the county in which the adult in custody is so charged requesting the district attorney to prosecute and bring the adult in custody to trial on the charge forthwith.

(2)

The notice provided for in subsection (1) of this section shall be signed by the adult in custody and set forth the place and term of imprisonment. A copy of the notice shall be sent to the court in which the adult in custody has been charged by indictment, information or complaint. [Formerly 134.510; 1987 c.320 §19; 1995 c.423 §9b; 2019 c.213 §15]

See also annotations under ORS 134.510 in permanent edition.

Notes of Decisions

Letter of inmate to district attorney requesting information concerning status of pending charge of theft was not “notice requesting trial” pursuant to ORS 135.763. State v. Williams, 39 Or App 223, 592 P2d 226 (1979)

Where ORS 135.763 states that district attorney’s duty to act does not arise until he receives notice under this section, defendant’s testimony that he sent notice to district attorney, which trial court believed, was sufficient to activate presumption that notice was received and trial court must determine whether state rebutted presumption and if so, whether district attorney received it more than 90 days before motion to dismiss. State v. Liefke, 101 Or App 208, 789 P2d 700 (1990)

Penalty-phase proceeding is not subject to speedy trial request because no charge is pending at that phase. State v. Pinnell, 319 Or 438, 877 P2d 635 (1994)

Where inmate defendant is aware that indictment, information or complaint is pending or has been filed and knowingly fails to file notice requesting trial, defendant is precluded from asserting that subsequent period of delay violates speedy trial right under [former] ORS 135.747. State v. Ayers, 203 Or App 683, 126 P3d 1241 (2006), modified 207 Or App 668, 143 P3d 251 (2006), Sup Ct review denied

Request from incarcerated defendant to be tried within 90 days on pending harassment charge is sufficient to trigger 90 days period in ORS 135.763. State v. Ashcroft, 260 Or App 1, 316 P3d 355 (2013), Sup Ct review denied

§§ 135.760 to 135.773

Notes of Decisions

Where defendant, who requested speedy trial, made written motion for psychiatric examination and a continuance, state had already set trial within 90-day limit, and examination was delayed because of state hospital backlog which resulted in delay of trial beyond 90-day limit, circumstances were not sufficient to require dismissal of charges. State v. Fannin, 48 Or App 795, 617 P2d 953 (1980)

Where accusatory instrument did not exist at time defendant claims to have given written notice requesting speedy trial, notice cannot trigger statutory rights. State v. Easton, 103 Or App 184, 797 P2d 373 (1990)


Source
Last accessed
May. 15, 2020