Opinion ID: 1133268
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged Failure to Provide Speedy Trial

Text: An information was filed against defendant on April 7, 1966, and trial was held on February 23, 1967. Defendant contends that under the provisions of C.R. S.1963, 39-7-12, he is entitled to a judgment of dismissal, because his case was concededly not tried within two terms. However, defendant was tried before the lapse of one year. It is well-established that Colo.R.Crim.P. 48(b), which permits trial within one year from the filing of the information, is the controlling test and not the aformentioned C.R.S.1963, 39-7-12. Lucero v. People, 161 Colo. 568, 423 P.2d 577; Rhodus v. People, 160 Colo. 407, 418 P.2d 42; Casias v. People, 160 Colo. 152, 415 P.2d 344. Nor do we find that defendant was in any way deprived of his right to a speedy public trial within the intendment of Colo.Const., art. II, § 16. We reiterate that a speedy public trial is a relative concept, because the circumstances of each case determine whether it has been afforded; and further, that the burden is upon defendant to prove that an expeditious trial was denied him. Medina v. People, 154 Colo. 4, 387 P.2d 733, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 848, 85 S.Ct. 88, 13 L.Ed.2d 52; Jordan v. People, 155 Colo. 224, 393 P.2d 745. We find that defendant did not meet this burden. Moreover, the record shows that between the date of charge and of trial, defendant, with his counsel, made seven appearances in court to dispose of various pretrial matters. As we stated in Medina v. People, supra : `Speedy public trial,' required by the Constitution, does not mean trial immediately after the accused is apprehended and indicted, but public trial consistent with the court's business. The record is devoid of any showing that the trial was not held as soon as consistent with the court's business or that defendant suffered any prejudice by reason of the short delay.