Here, because defendant entered a guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement, he was not convicted following a trial. Then, because the case reached a final disposition by the reinstatement of the guilty plea on November 6 and before the six months expired, defendant s statutory right to speedy trial was not violated. In the alternative, defendant contends that his constitutional right to speedy trial was violated. He argues that the delays caused by the prosecution and the court before allowing him to withdraw his plea deprived him of this constitutional right. We find no violation.
Defendant carries the burden to establish the violation.
Here, the total length of time from receipt of the mandate from this court to the final disposition of this case was eleven months. We recognize that defendant did assert his right to speedy trial on several occasions. Further, and significantly, defendant has not asserted any specific prejudice resulting from the delays. In this context, the fact that defendant was incarcerated is given slight weight absent a showing that his ability to present a defense was impaired. Thus, under all of these circumstances, we conclude that defendant s constitutional right to speedy trial was not violated.