record get in for a ride the state made that choice but it did and it did affect mr eccles and we'll get to that i suppose in just a minute but the second reason is quite frankly because presidents states that the time in between to be true represented this is office who represented the state in the probation hearing that he was in prison instead of the state narrows the indictments to an address somewhere in cook county obviously he doesn't appear for the subsequent hearing in the state asks for charges had been refiled because he never received them once he gets the public defender instead of demanding a trial immediately the public defender demands that the charges be dismissed because the violation had already occurred and within  associates who respect the says hearing to occur within three business days possibly is fast as possible and at that point the state files a written response to the motion to dismiss everybody at that point agrees that the public defender should meet that it at a minimum ten months the reason for the delay is entirely attributable to the state mr eccles did immediately as soon as he could assert his right to a speedy trial and this is not this is not a nebulous form of prejudice he did because the state's misconduct in failing to produce or negligence in failing to produce an incarcerated defendant was just too bad that was a twenty nine month delay wasn't it not in the restaurant or i think the basic principle in that case  the principle would be the state has a duty to know who was in prison and in particular in this case as in culture the state did not know who was in prison i think that that that are always especially heavy that's the case just indicates that the child credit properly denied defendants motion to dismiss the indictment based on speedy trial the first step to the length of the delay here the length of the delay is that most eight months well till the sitting there waiting i would suggest that this isn't happened a fake on the end that it happened you don't really see this many type of cases i think it's important to note there was no bad faith on the part of the filing against a motion the matter was continued by agreement on several occasions but was never a six weeks defendant argument is weakened in light of the fact that his counsel after setting his right to a speedy trial continued to  sentencing is a bit on any offense where the trial court has made a finding that the protection of the public require such a sentence when you take a look at the defendant's that ground it is reasonable to assume that th rationale behind a constitutional speedy trial violation is to prevent gamesmanship certainly not to be able to be used as a get out of jail free card when a custody check girls are right yet the trial court's ruling was seven i think the most important point and the thing that the state seems to spend a lot of time on is the boss possibility with a concurrent sentences this is a recognized form of grey this in and to be clear the courts have found that it's our last possibility of a concurrent sentence not necessarily the ross of an actual concurrent sentence in life because we can't know what the sentence would ultimately have been but i do agree that with the state that it is the judge who should be able to make there's also no evidence to suggest that the judge may have thought that this was a particularly egregious or serious case such that it consecutive sentence would have been necessary or there was within that judge's discretion the state certainly did not think that this was a serious case if that that mr ebbers was out on the