AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was indicted and argued that his trial did not occur within the 180-day period prescribed by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), claiming there was no good cause for a continuance. The Defendant, through his counsel, later conceded that he "effectively waived" his right to a speedy trial, leading to the affirmation of his robbery conviction (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice because his trial occurred outside of the 180-day period generally prescribed by the IAD and contended there was not good cause for a continuance (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice due to the trial occurring outside of the 180-day period prescribed by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) without good cause for a continuance (para 1).

Disposition

• The district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to dismiss was affirmed, and the Defendant's robbery conviction was upheld (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Ives, J., with Hanisee, C.J., and Henderson, J., concurring: The Defendant conceded that the district court did not err in denying his motion to dismiss because he "effectively waived" his right to a speedy trial. This concession was accepted by the Court of Appeals after an independent review revealed no reason to reject it. The decision to affirm the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss and uphold the Defendant's robbery conviction was based on this concession and the lack of any other claims of error in the appeal (para 1).