Opinion ID: 1846260
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: whether kolberg has been denied speedy proceedings.

Text: ¶ 172. Kolberg filed a motion to bar his retrial based on the denial of speedy proceedings. He also tells us that when the State sought a continuance, he filed another motion which opposed any continuance. He argues before us that the delay in his first trial, the delay in his appeal, and his delay in the second trial warrant a reversal and dismissal here. ¶ 173. We addressed the issue of delay in his first trial and held it was without merit. Kolberg I, 704 So.2d at 1318-19. As to his claim for the denial of a speedy appeal, we did not find his claim to be without merit; however, we also stated in Kolberg I that [t]he remedy for denial of a speedy appeal is not clear since this Court has never recognized such a right and does not do so now. Id. at 1320. However, we did not determine what the remedy should be as we were reversing the case on other grounds. Id. ¶ 174. As pointed out by the State, although Kolberg filed a motion to dismiss or prevent the second trial asserting speedy trial violations, there were no hearings or orders on these motions. Thus, Kolberg is not appealing to us from an erroneous decision of the trial judge. In Rushing v. State, 711 So.2d 450, 456 (Miss.1998), we stated: It is the responsibility of the movant to obtain a ruling from the court on motions filed by him and a failure to do so constitutes a waiver of the same. (citations omitted). Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.