Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): conflict-free counsel, February 23, 2006, because the defendant was “unable to stand trial” during that entire period. The defendant counters that, although the time it took the court to dispose of the motions to withdraw and appoint new counsel should be excluded from the 180-day period, the time he was represented by each counsel must be included. We agree with the defendant. The parties agree that the period of time between the filing of the motions to withdraw and the appointment of new counsel should be excluded from the 180-day period. During this time period, the defendant was without counsel and, thus, “no action of consequence to the defendant c[ould have] occur[red] in the . . . case until the motion [wa]s resolved.” State v. Rieger, 695 N.W.2d 678, 687 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds, 708 N.W.2d 630 (Neb. 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing conflict (B) holding that delay resulting from defense counsels withdrawal based upon a conflict of interest was properly excluded from 180day time period (C) holding that when defense counsel withdrew an objection to admission of evidence the defendant waived his right to a review of the courts ruling on appeal (D) holding that where a defendant acquiesces in a continuance that time is excluded from the speedy trial calculation (E) holding that delay when defense counsel withdrew because of conflict is excluded from iad time calculation
Output (English): holding that delay resulting from defense counsels withdrawal based upon a conflict of interest was properly excluded from 180day time period