Mo. Rev. Stat. § 545.920 — MO Code / Chapter 545 / Section 545.920
545.920 When defendant not entitled to discharge.
Status: in_force

545.920. When defendant not entitled to discharge. — In all cities or counties in this state in which there shall be more than two regular terms of the court having jurisdiction of criminal cases, the defendant shall not be entitled to be discharged for the reasons and under the circumstances mentioned in section 545.890 until the end of the third term after the indictment was found, and under the circumstances mentioned in section 545.900 , the defendant shall not be entitled to be discharged until the end of the fourth term after the indictment was found, and in either case the matter of discharge shall, at the end of such third and fourth terms, be governed by the provisions of section 545.910 .

(RSMo 1939 § 4088) Prior revisions: 1929 § 3699; 1919 § 4043; 1909 § 5249 (1953) Where court order continuing cause recited that it was made on account of congested docket and lack of time, it could not be collaterally attacked or impeached. Osborne v. Owsley (A.), 257 S.W.2d 691. (1955) Where defendant was tried at first term of circuit court of St. Louis City after amended information was filed and at the third term (excluding term at which original information was filed) after prosecution instituted, he was not entitled to his discharge. State v. Newstead (Mo.), 280 S.W.2d 6. (1957) Where indictment was filed on September, 1954, term but defendant's plea was entered in December, 1954, term and defendant was tried at the September, 1955, term (there being five terms of court a year) he was not entitled to discharge as two continuances to the next term were for "want of time to try the case." State v. Malone (Mo.), 301 S.W.2d 750. (1961) On claim that defendant was not brought to trial within four terms after the indictment was filed the record was reviewed and held not to show that there was time during such terms to try the defendant. State v. Werbin (Mo.), 345 S.W.2d 103. (1971) Contention on appeal from proceeding under court rule 27.26 that conviction should have been set aside because movant had not been granted a speedy trial, in that although he entered plea of guilty at third term after information was filed he was not sentenced until the fourth term, overruled since statutory provisions as to speedy trial are not jurisdictional and are waived unless timely invoked, and entry of plea of guilty ended all questions based upon either statutory or constitutional guarantees of speedy trial. Rew v. State (Mo.), 472 S.W.2d 611. (1972) Although information was filed during September, 1968, term and trial began during September, 1969, term after elapse of four terms of court, since defendant took no action at any time to secure a trial until he filed motion for discharge at May, 1969, term defendant was not entitled to discharge. Failure to take affirmative action seeking a speedy trial constitutes waiver of that right. State v. Wright (Mo.), 476 S.W.2d 581. (1972) Where statute requires discharge of a person indicted and committed to prison within three terms if there are more than two regular terms of court a year, the term at which information was filed is not included in the computation. State v. Roach (Mo.), 480 S.W.2d 841. (1972) Where appellant had escaped from custody before arraignment set for March 31, 1966, and was convicted of crime in California and on June 10, 1970, was paroled from California sentence and returned for trial in Missouri, there was no denial of constitutional right to speedy trial since defendant showed no prejudice except his assertions that each year made it more difficult to find witnesses and that the Missouri detainer precluded him from California rehabilitation programs. State v. Endres (Mo.), 482 S.W.2d 480. (1972) Where there is nothing in the record to indicate that the accused or his counsel at any time made any demand for a trial, or that he made such request without success for a reasonable length of time before his right to release has been asserted, he is not entitled to release simply because the required number of terms have elapsed. State v. West (Mo.), 484 S.W.2d 191.