Skip to main content

State v. Jeske

Citations

  • 823 P.2d 6
  • 1991 Alas. App. LEXIS 97
  • 1991 WL 273668

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that “the wording of Rule 45(d)(2) apparently requires a criminal defendant’s concurrence in any delay or continuance requested by the defense attorney”
  • holding that “[o]nce it is clear that the defendant has not consented and will not consent to the continuance, Rule 45(d)(2) directs the trial judge to restart the Rule 45 clock”
  • “The State argues that the Alaska Supreme Court, when promulgating Rule 45(d)(2), inadvertently changed the ‘or’ of the ABA standard to an ‘and’.”
  • “We assume, for purposes of deciding this case, that Rule 45(d)(2) requires the defendant’s consent to any continuance requested by defense counsel.”
  • “[T]he trial court normally does not need to secure a personal waiver from the defendant when the defense attorney takes action or acquiesces in action that, under Rule 45(d), stops the running of Rule 45.”
  • “When a defendant asserts that he or she never consented to a continuance obtained or stipulated to by defense counsel, Rule 45 remains tolled until the judge makes an affirmative finding that the defendant did not consent to the previously ordered continuance.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bryner, Coats, Mannheimer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.