Skip to main content

Marks v. State

Citations

  • 578 A.2d 828
  • 84 Md. App. 269
  • 1990 Md. App. LEXIS 146

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • recognizing that delay caused by continuance requested by a codefendant was chargeable to the state because the state elected to try the defendant and codefendant jointly
  • holding that [Wright] waived his speedy trial right where he only raised the Hicks issue at trial
  • “[T]he benefits that the rule confers upon defendants are 6 In 1979, for instance, the Hicks Rule was changed from a 120-Day Rule into a 180-Day Rule. 23 incidental.”
  • \The purpose of the 180 day rule is to protect the societal interest in the prompt trial of criminal cases; the benefits that the rule confers upon defendants are incidental.\ (Citation omitted).
  • joint request for continuance is neutral and not chargeable to either party
  • \[T]he benefits that the rule confers upon defendants are incidental.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Moylan, Karwacki, Getty

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.