State v. Ish

Summary

The Court affirmed Ish’s conviction and sentence after rejecting his claims concerning speedy trial, venue, juror bias, cumulative error, vindictive sentencing, sentence excessiveness, and Rule 35 relief. It held that Ish’s speedy-trial right was restored upon remittitur, but that the pandemic-related and other delays did not violate that right under the four-factor balancing test. The Court also held that the record did not establish prejudicial publicity or juror bias, that the Pearce presumption did not apply because the second sentencing judge had only ruled on a prior Rule 35 motion, and that the sentence and denial of leniency were within the district court’s discretion.