Stanley Carter, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee — Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part

Summary

Justice Goodson concurred in the conclusion that Carter was not denied a speedy trial but dissented from the majority's treatment of two exclusion periods. She would have included the docket-congestion period because the court's order, docket entry, and contemporaneous statements satisfied the applicable rule, but would have excluded the period attributed to defense counsel's illness because no contemporaneous record documented that basis. Justice Goodson, concurring in part and dissenting in part, therefore disagreed with the majority's reasoning on both exclusion periods while agreeing with the ultimate speedy-trial result.