State v. Maldonado
In State v. Maldonado, 92 Ariz. 70, 72-73, 373 P.2d 583, 584 (1962) the defendant asked our supreme court to reverse his conviction for burglary on the ground that seventy-nine days had elapsed between his arrest and his preliminary hearing
Pursuant to A.R.S. 13-3898 (2001), then A.R.S. 13-1418, the defendant, arrested without a warrant, was supposed to have been brought before a magistrate "without unnecessary delay."
According to the court, "that a flagrant violation of this statute has occurred in this instance is not open to argument.
Indeed the State candidly admits that defendant was unlawfully incarcerated and also admits that had he desired to seek relief by way of habeas corpus a writ would have issued." Id. at 73, 373 P.2d at 584-85.
The court held, however, that "unless the preliminary delay in some way deprives an accused of a fair trial there is no denial of due process of law." Id. at 76, 373 P.2d at 587.