Opinion ID: 901124
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: [¶ 2.] On June 12, 2000, the State filed a three count complaint charging Cottrill with one count of procuring or promoting prostitution and two alternative counts of pimping. The following constitutes a chronology of other significant events pertinent to this appeal: June 13, 2000Cottrill's first appearance on the complaint. July 13, 2000Indictment filed. August 7, 2000Cottrill is arraigned on the indictment. August 25, 2000Service and filing of defense motion to suppress evidence. August 29, 2000Motion hearing before Judge Fitzgerald. Trial date set for October 30 and 31, 2000. September 13, 2000Order filed denying defense motion to suppress evidence. October 30 and 31, 2000Due to a scheduling conflict, trial dates are rescheduled by court administrator for December 14 and 15, 2000. December 2000Due to a trip taken by Judge Fitzgerald, December trial dates are rescheduled by court administrator for February 1 and 2, 2001. Prosecutor contacts defense counsel to discuss the 180 day rule. Defense counsel indicates his client will waive the rule. December 10, 2000-180 calendar days after Cottrill's June 13 first appearance. December 29, 2000-180 days after Cottrill's June 13 first appearance if nineteen days are excluded for the defense motion to suppress evidence. January 29 & 31, 2001Discovery/status hearing begins on January 29 and is continued on January 31. On January 31, defense counsel indicates Cottrill has kidney stones and was in the emergency room earlier that day. Counsel expresses concern that Cottrill might vomit during the trial set to commence the next day. Judge Fitzgerald denies a continuance and indicates that the trial will proceed. After the hearing, Cottrill goes to her doctor's office where she is given medication and a referral to a urologist. The doctor also provides Cottrill with a written excuse from court the following day. Defense counsel takes the excuse to Judge Fitzgerald who postpones the February 1 and 2 trial dates at Cottrill's request. February 12, 2001Status hearing. Cottrill is excused from appearing at the hearing because of illness. Judge Fitzgerald announces, [t]his case is going to start on March 7th and 8th. For reasons not clear in the record, the trial date is actually set for April 11 and 12, 2001. March 27, 2001Judge Fitzgerald has eye surgery. April 2001Because of Judge Fitzgerald's eye surgery, the court administrator reschedules the April trial dates for May 10 and 11, 2001. May 3, 2001Status hearing. Extensive discussion of the 180 day rule. Judge Fitzgerald states he thought the 180 day rule was waived and mentions the case was set for trial and the defendant was medically unable to have a trial. Judge then states he had an eye operation on March 27 and is not up to having a jury trial on May 10 and 11. Again the judge indicates, I really thought the 180 daysI think it's still been waived anyway. Judge Fitzgerald also mentions the possibility of getting another judge, but indicates that he would not really like doing that. The judge expresses his preference to continue the case to a date in June that would be certain. At that point, Judge Fitzgerald asks if the State has any objection. The prosecutor replies that he has no objection and that, I believe the Court has set forth good cause for this delay at this point. The prosecutor then asks defense counsel if he has any objection and defense counsel replies, I relayed this to my client. Judge Fitzgerald asks Cottrill directly if she has any objection and she replies, No. No, I wasn't sure on the reason for the delay. I hadI was under the impression that it was because of reluctant witnesses in the beginning for the first two delays. Cottrill continues stating, [n]ow that I understandI do understand. At that point, the judge mentions his mandate to get cases disposed of and again proposes a June trial date agreeable to everyone. Cottrill replies, Yes. Yes. Judge Fitzgerald mentions dates of June 13 and 14 and Cottrill states, I have problems with my witnesses. The judge then proposes June 27 and 28 and asks if that is agreeable. Cottrill answers, [t]hat's fine. Her counsel also adds, that's fine. May 4, 2001Defense counsel files a motion to modify Cottrill's bond conditions. The motion recites that, speedy trial has been waived. June and July, 2001Judge Fitzgerald's health problems necessitate rescheduling trial dates. July 3, 2001Judge Fitzgerald dies. Case is later assigned to Judge Kern. July 20, 2001At Judge Kern's request, defense counsel sends Judge Kern a letter confirming Cottrill's waiver of her speedy trial rights. The letter recites in pertinent part: Upon request of the Court, who by and through her attorney ... respectfully confirms the oral waiver of our right to a speedy trial which had been originally scheduled for February 1 and February 2, 2001 and canceled upon Defendant's request showing that she had been hospitalized and unable to undergo trial at that time. The trial was canceled upon oral waiver of speedy trial. Rescheduling of the trial to April 11 and 12, 2001 was made upon the illness of the trial Judge, again to May 10 and 11, 2001, and both parties agreed there had been an oral waiver of Defendant's speedy trial rights again at those times. The last trial was rescheduled until July 5 and 6, 2001 and not reset due to the illness and death of presiding Judge Fitzgerald. August 20, 2001Defense counsel files a motion to dismiss under the 180 day rule. August 30, 2001The State serves and files a response to the motion to dismiss and a motion to toll the 180 day rule. August 31, 2001Telephonic hearing before Judge James Anderson (at some point assigned to the case) on the motion to dismiss. Judge Anderson denies the motion finding an open ended waiver of the 180 day rule. September 6, 2001Cottrill's trial begins. [¶ 3.] Cottrill was convicted and sentenced to concurrent sentences of eighteen months in the penitentiary on the two counts. She appealed and the State filed a motion to remand the matter to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the cause of the delay in the case. This Court entered its order of remand on May 21, 2002, and the trial court conducted its remand hearing on July 17. On August 14, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law again determining Cottrill waived her rights under the 180 day rule. The matter is once again before this Court.