we in the state found a motion regarding which gets corrected so there was a request for am a continuance based on that witness even though that isn't told the speedy trial time yet the court just basically said that motion to dismiss that only one hundred sixty three days around that period of time it passed so the state's position is that it clearly erred when it granted a motion to dismiss prior to the two hundred forty days in the state does understand what your hono instead of just granting the motion to dismiss the trial court should have added those additional forty nine days from the november second proceeding until the november sixth proceeding which was where that motion to continue that wasn't for counsel during those time periods where there was a motion in being in court heard the motion and then decided the motion and then set the matter for pretrial that time between the ruling on a motion like the pranks notion or the motion to suppress the time between the ruling on a motion in the court setting it for pretrial to whom is that time attributable to do you have the specific days in front of you that you want to have a well i mean it doesn't really matter because state's aware of the issues when it's a speedy trial and whether the trial court makes a finding as to how many days are to build him and how that mixes with a motion to suppress finding him a standard of you review for that the state would just say that when the trial court makes a finding of days attributable to one party i feel like upon reviewing the record normally it's pretty clear as to who it is attributable to when the defendant objects whether he exercises his speedy trial right and then when you're calculating total number of days if those days don't even get near let's say here that two hundred forty day period it was clearly error so whichever standard of review is put the ball then it can be reversed because it was clearly error whether it's an abuse of discretion or against a manifest with evidence because it clearly was an abuse of discretion or against the manifest whether the evidence regarding that specific scenery for this case as it and with in the one hundred twenty day limit on the hundred fourteen day here although somewhat debatable last exact day it was within that one hundred to one hundred twenty day period following this the state requested another continuance and colson and the record denied this motion and then discussing due diligence there's not really a statutory definition of it that's to be decided on a case by case basis but this court stated that as long as there's not excessive delay in getting the d n a evidence material to the lab further in people vs lacy the supreme court found that although it wasn't the d n a evidence it was material evidence regarding sixty days for several witnesses the supreme court found that that time gets tacked on to the shore hundred twenty and they can only be granted after the state has exercised due diligence and it that evidence that exceeds within that original hundred twenty days the statute does not allow for additional time simply because d n a has been tested at some point th says that the continuance can be granted to obtain results of d n a testing at the time granted is limited to obtaining the results of d n a testing with all the statute allows for to because the statute does really narrowly limit what that time can be used for i think the legislature probably thought that it was explicit that time can be used to obtain the results of d n a testing that the statute doesn't say it can be due diligence and i'm going to give you at this point and additional thirty days or forty five days indeed we will come back with a further review and you can renew your motion on how they want to handle it is there anything that precludes the trial  heard regarding their coming and she's entertaining to the states and will both parties that she doesn't intend to give a blanket two hundred forty days for them to be doing that she's saying yes you may have additional time if you need it but if it's not needed we're going to be you agree that the motion the state filed requested an additional one hundred twenty days your notice that motion requested two things they did request an additional hundred twenty days but it also requests said that that original september ninth motion a continu thousand and fifteen to try mr williams and to get miss russell that they're missing witness and so our position is that this is an issue of statutory interpretation subject to join overkill because we're looking at whether or not the statute allows for the things that took place in lab he told me this on the stage we expect these things to happen our position is that before coming in ship stand the speedy trial statute because what it really was going to be going out was that october twenty second date was that at that time it's not asking too much of the state to make one phone call or send one e mail to the lab just asking for some sort of expectation of when the d n a might be done before asking to actually go outside of the original hundred twenty days and then asking the state to do that would not be asking for battles to be adapted been resolved and october second that's when judge lad had made her growling at any time required to make the ruling which which is fenced time up until that that point in time that is any time after that one was made is that they still have violated mr harris is racist the trial by using two hundred forty nine days and you're in our position is that even if the state was entitled to some additional time we believe it was not but even if this part finds that it was entitle to some additional time regarding the obtaining of d n a which was what their request was for was for additional time to obtain the d n a results which were done on day one a wine even if his court finds it wasn't titled to some additional time that time cannot possibly encompass the two continuance as november of two thousand and fifteen the one where the state just chose to try a different case that did not have a speedy trial issue after mr how does it send custody for over one hundred eight hundred actual days i realize this or not attributable to the state even in custody for the material witness that they did not have for health reasons the state could have asked for an extension of time under one of three five c for that it very likely would have been granted they had the medical know and the things that they thought they needed to prove by mr to say should only be permitted to obtain a continuance outside of a speedy trial term for t n a testing or has been unable to obtain those results within the original term despite diligent efforts to do so and then should only be permitted the amount of time necessary to obtain th the state did look through the transcript attached to the finance brief and this was a motion to dismiss that was granted the trial court found that the state was entitled to in addition to the time of one hundred twenty days and this was where each kind of was discussing tolling of the that whole issue which isn't really relevant so it doesn't tell the hundred twenty days that's an additional one hundred up to one twenty and that's clearly set out people versus bonds it simply adds to the able time by another one hundred twenty if that full amount is needed that would be the maximum amount not a guaranteed amount to obtain those results and i said the state exercise due diligence they have taken the results within a timely frame for the full extension they are allowed basically what the court has stated was exactly what one of th diligence whether that was err this record shows that the trial court found due diligence four separate times on three motions and then retrospective when the first motion to dismiss and when you review whether due diligence is to be found you review the record at the time of the motion and not retrospective lee so you if you're going to say yes it came back with one hundred twenty days obviously at the time when it was first granted and due diligence was found that was unknown that's the entire reason for the motion constitutional and still to serve the defendant's right to trial even if they're stacked on top charlie and i believe lacey then so the proposition that state could keep stacking sixty days as long as it was not  or was not the state was not attempting to obviously violate the defendant right now just to discuss people vs battles as your honor state i believe your eyes were discussing the language of the statute and there is no language in the subsection or the remaining text of the speedy trial statute that mandates the trial court after granting a motion to continue to monitor the state's conduct ascertain w