Opinion ID: 1673698
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Counsel's Statements

Text: The next period that we believe should be excluded from the time for speedy trial is that resulting from defense counsel's statement that he would seek a writ of prohibition. The record reflects that Appellant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial on January 26, 1998, and a hearing was held on February 2, 1998. After hearing arguments from both sides, the trial court denied the motion. The following exchange then occurred between defense counsel, Paul Petty, and the trial court: MR. PETTY: Your Honor, then I feel I must be compelled to tell the Court that I am going to file a Writ of Prohibition. I assume from this moment on any time that extends this time for trial will be charged against the defendant. THE COURT: I would think so, from this time on yes. MR. PETTY: And if I'm right, then I'm right, and if I'm wrong then I guess this case will come back up at some point in time. THE COURT: That would be my understanding of the procedure. Are you going to do that today, I suppose, or tomorrow? MR. PETTY: II will file it, Your Honor, and will be a copy to [the deputy prosecutor] for his approval this afternoon. THE COURT: Okay. The record does not reflect that a writ of prohibition was ever sought by Appellant. The State argues that counsel's statement amounted to an unconditional waiver of Appellant's right to speedy trial from February 2, 1998, until the trial on February 3, 1999. Appellant, however, argues that counsel's assumption that the time would be charged to him was conditioned upon his pursuit of a writ of prohibition. Since no writ was ever sought, Appellant argues that the time for speedy trial was not tolled by counsel's statements. Appellant contends that it should have been obvious to both the State and the trial court that he had not pursued the writ as of March 1998. He relies on the following docket entries: 3/19/98 Cont. on Motion of Defendant Aug. 3, 98 Term /Pre Trial June 30, 1998 9/24/98 Cont. on Motion of Defendant Feb. 1, 99 Term /P T Jan. 4, 1998 We agree with Appellant's argument on this point. This court has long recognized that a defendant has no duty or obligation to bring himself or herself to trial; rather, the burden is on the court and the prosecutor to see that the trial is held in a timely fashion. See Eubanks, 334 Ark. 21, 972 S.W.2d 234; Tanner, 324 Ark. 37, 918 S.W.2d 166. In the present case, we have no hesitancy in concluding that counsel's statement had a tolling effect on the speedy-trial period, based on his assertion that he would seek a writ of prohibition. See Rhodes v. Capeheart, 313 Ark. 16, 852 S.W.2d 118 (1993). The question, however, is whether the tolling effect extended up to the date of trial, one year and one day later. Under the particular facts of this case, we conclude that it did not. On this point we disagree with the State that anything short of a specific reassertion of his speedy-trial right by Appellant would have tolled the time indefinitely, even up to ten years. Given the foregoing docket entries made by the trial court, the State was undoubtedly aware that no writ of prohibition had been sought by Appellant. Otherwise, there would be no need for continuances of the trial date. Accordingly, we conclude that only that time from February 2, 1998, to March 19, 1998, a total of 45 days, should be excluded.