for speedy trial purposes the defendant was placed in custody on another matter a pending one matter on august eleventh of two thousand and ten there was a court date on august thirtieth in which defense ninth again in a defense counsel stated that she was not making a speedy trial demand because she was aware that the state was the acting on the felony matter so speedy trial didn't apply on the non elected matter and the case was continued to nov twenty ninth november twenty ninth is an important date this is the day that both the state and defense counsel both answer ready for trial they both stated they were ready to proceed there was some confusion about whether speedy trial supplying the state i assume didn't recall whether the supply into the case they had to confirm what the felony division and determined that the only thing was still the elected case this was also the first we have two separate lawyers involved in this case on behalf of the defendant one from the found on the defender a lawyer and the foundation and a separate lawyer in this misdemeanor case for this seems obvious from the right of this attorney was those were state delays alone and i would also submit that the time period same time period in which this was the non elected case it would not be about tolling that's applying to the defendant this is outside files a written demand which she didn't even have to do and also stated on their day if i knew you were going to change and why should i would have been waving a speedy trial this time meaning she thought she was waving a speedy trial until she filed this written  trial term was tall i mean she's she's saying things that appear to be waving but she's saying i'm waving because of the election i think that's the key i believe she thinks that she can demand a speedy trial when she's the non elected case which is not the case that runs automatically runs automatically from custody the hundred twenty days runs except for delays very well have but i don't think that's relevant at all what's happening in other cases not relevant to this matter when may change their own option to this case this case has to be tried within a hundred twenty days of  in the second case of the one hundred ninety days if they change their election back they're still going back to the custody date from one hundred nineteen days previously so they wouldn't get another hundred twenty days it would still be calculated from the date of custody so that's what prevents this from going on to two hundred forty a day the point is without occasions to leave by the defendant they're supposed to be tried within one hundred twenty days  violation because it was with the hundred sixty days from conviction on the first to trial on the second the state in their brief focuses on why you feel action is changed only if the reason for the election is really relevant if the defendant doesn't dispute that the state can change their election as often as they wish as long as when they go to trial in the first case is within one hundred twenty days of c so what we're doing here is we're closing a loophole that's being in famished by the state when i heard we're not going to create a loophole for the defendant we're closing one if the state is using it this is so word they're trying to is the one that will proceed within the original one hundred twenty days the second case can be doing to up to one hundred sixty days thereafter conviction on the first that's why because there is the statu times that first one has to be tried within one hundred twenty days once you've gone to trial on the first one then you get your time to prepare a second one and you of course the time doesn't work right but the way is agreed to it's agreed to under the statute alas the person demands either in writing if she did later who are really in there's a whole bunch of cases that talk about what is to make an affective demand then it's occasioned by you and your claim is no it's not ok by me because all she said was it's ok because it's an election and essentially what you're asking us to do is to put words in her mouth and say that she is  an oral demand that she wanted speedy trial to apply in this matter and she said until of felony trial days right but she made the demand so if we're looking for a demand for the clock to start if i'm fine with to clock as opposed to whether or not it's supposed to be attributable to you that are you saying that from the twenty ninth the delay from the twenty ninth forward is not attributable to you there are no delays attributable to the defender there  twenty ninth what i'm say says difference between what you said and what i interpreted which is so i was i apologize for that and what i meant was the clock is always running from cost but an argument can be made yeah defense election statute has nothing and they have two different purposes she can still give the state their ability to prepare for each man or separately and give the