Stuard

Stuard v. Stewart

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 21, 200503-15300California2,477 words

Opinion

Opinion

Facts

Stuard committed an astonishing number of armed rob- beries. His restitution order, for the robberies of which he was 3488 STUARD v. STEWART convicted, showed a few hundred dollars each payable to Sub- way, Baskin Robbins, Domino’s, Dairy Queen, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Video Doctor, Little Caesars, and Payne & Morrison Flowers. Altogether he was convicted of ten armed robberies and four aggravated assaults, and sentenced to 266 years.

As Stuard approached trial, about three months after being indicted on one of the robberies, the prosecutor moved to con- solidate the case for trial with another indictment charging him with the rest. This put considerable pressure on defense counsel, who now had to try a much more extensive case that involved many more witnesses. On September 19, at the pre- trial conference held to set a firm trial date, the prosecutor suggested that defense counsel might need more time to pre- pare than the Arizona speedy trial rule1 would allow, and expressed concern that the conviction she expected to win might be subject to challenge if defense counsel was forced to try the case without adequate preparation time. The speedy trial…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.