#Motion to dismiss maryland trial
#Motion to dismiss maryland series

That argument is still alive and will be discussed in next month’s article.Ĭases where Good Cause has been found to postpone beyond 180 Days:

#Motion to dismiss maryland trial

If you are a defense attorney, just because you may not have a Hicks remedy does not mean that you do not have a constitutional speedy trial right remedy. The CSA held that because the trial court found good cause to continue the case and did so for the time requested, that Ashton’s rights under 4-271 were not violated. On appeal, Ashton contended that he was coerced into seeking the continuance beyond 180 days. 607, 620 (2009), the defendant filed a motion for a continuance beyond Hicks to assess DNA evidence and prepare for trial. Stated otherwise, the 180 th day is the “bright line” beyond which dismissal is not available as a sanction once the trial date, in compliance with the rule and the statutory provision, has crossed that line.

Maryland 4-271 was no longer applicable after the administrative judge made a good cause finding to extend the trial beyond the 180 days. The nol pros could not have had the necessary and actual effect of extending the trial date beyond the 180-day period. A nol pros was entered three months after the Hicks period had expired. 458, 480-81 (2006), the defendant asked for a trial date beyond the 180-day period and executed an effective waiver. Rather, it is because “it would be entirely inappropriate for the defendant to gain advantage from a violation of the rule when he was a party to that violation.” Id. This is not because the defendant, by his action or consent, has “waived” the requirements of and, so that the requirements are inapplicable. “ven when a circuit court criminal case has been postponed beyond the 180-day time limit in violation of and, the sanction of dismissal is inapplicable ‘where the defendant, either individually or by his attorney, seeks or expressly consents to a trial date in violation of. If defense asks for postponement beyond 180 Days, defense cannot then ask for a dismissal based on a violation of Hicks “he critical postponement for purposes of Rule 4-271 is the one that carries the case beyond the 180 day deadline.” See State v. It does not matter that the jury has not been sworn on the 180 th day, or that there may be a delay in the trial after the start of voir dire. § 6-103(a), the trial begins upon the start of voir dire. What must occur by the 180 th day and what is the critical postponement?įor purposes of Rule 4-271 and C.P. § 6-103 is to operate as a “prophylactic measure” to further society’s interest in the prompt disposition of criminal trials.

Thus, the Hicks rule is a statement of public policy and not a source of individual rights like the Sixth Amendment. 6-103 and Rule 4-271 are purely incidental.

The Hicks Rule serves as a means of protecting society’s interest in the efficient administration of justice and the actual or apparent benefits from C.P. A county administrative judge or that judge’s designee may, however, grant a postponement beyond the 180-day deadline “for good cause shown.” Id.ĭismissal is the appropriate remedy where the State fails to bring the case to trial within the 180-day period and good cause has not been established. See § 6-103 of the Criminal Procedure Article (“C.P.”) Md. Maryland law requires that a criminal case be brought to trial within 180 days of the appearance of counsel or the appearance of the defendant before the circuit court, whichever occurs first. Trial within 180 days or dismissal of charges unless good cause is shown

#Motion to dismiss maryland series

We hope this series will serve as primer, reminder and resource for those raising or defending against speedy trial claims. In a subsequent article will address the 6 th Amendment of the U.S.

This article and the next article will address Maryland Rule 4-271, Criminal Procedure Article 6-103, and Hicks and its progeny. This is the first of a four-part series on speedy trial issues. Part One – State Speedy Trial Considerations