Opinion ID: 1719459
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Speedy Trial IssuePresence of Defendant.

Text: Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 25(1) implements constitutional due process rights and provides in part that an accused shall be present at every stage of the trial. We have held the quoted language of the rule includes all pretrial proceedings when fact issues are presented or when their disposition, for some other reason, will be significantly aided by the defendant's presence. State v. Foster, 318 N.W.2d 176, 179 (Iowa 1982). In Foster we held such pretrial proceedings did not include an ex parte proceeding at which the state was summarily granted permission to have the defendant neurologically examined pursuant to Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 10(10)(b)(2). 318 N.W.2d at 179. Here we must determine if the defendant had the right to be present when his attorney advised the court that defendant would waive speedy trial. Trial had been scheduled for July 6, 1982, but a codefendant moved for a continuance because his attorney would be unavailable. Although defendant did not authorize his attorney to waive speedy trial, his attorney filed a written waiver and the trial court granted the codefendant's motion. Trial was rescheduled to commence on July 26 which was eight days beyond the ninety-day deadline fixed by our speedy trial rule. Iowa R.Crim.P. 27(2)(a). Thereafter defendant moved for dismissal under the speedy trial rule, and the motion was heard on July 27 and 28. At the hearing defendant testified that he had not authorized his attorney to file the speedy trial waiver, and his attorney acknowledged that fact. The trial court then determined the motion to dismiss, finding that there had been good cause for the delay of trial because other attorneys had had scheduling conflicts. In finding that there had been good cause for the delay, a factual determination not here challenged, the trial court did not place any reliance on the unauthorized waiver of speedy trial which had been filed by defendant's attorney. We conclude that defendant did not have a constitutional right to be present when the trial court, on July 6, 1982, rescheduled trial of the case. The court did not at that time hear and finally decide the factual issues which now form the basis for his due process claim. The trial court was not then aware that the written waiver of speedy trial was unauthorized and that defendant wished to stand on his speedy trial rights. Rather, it was during the later hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss, not earlier when trial was rescheduled, that the trial court received evidence and then decided whether defendant's speedy trial rights had been violated by the unauthorized waiver and continuance of the trial. Defendant was not only present at that hearing but had full opportunity to present testimony for the court's consideration. Defendant has not shown that his absence on July 6, when the case initially was rescheduled, violated his right to due process, as implemented by Rule 25(1). Although we find no violation of defendant's right of due process, we certainly do not thereby express approval of the filing by counsel of an unauthorized waiver of defendant's speedy trial right. Cf. State v. Anderson, 308 N.W.2d 42, 49 (Iowa 1981); State v. Orozco, 290 N.W.2d 6, 9 (Iowa 1980): Every reasonable accommodation should be made to insure that defendants receive, not only the process to which they are constitutionally due, but also that process which will serve to dispel their suspicions as to the integrity of our legal system. We simply find on these facts that the defendant before trial was provided and exercised his right to be present, give testimony, and thereby aid the court in deciding whether his speedy trial right had been violated.