Opinion ID: 874769
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the State Violate Defendant's Statutory Right to a Speedy Trial?

Text: Defendant contends that the State violated his statutory right to a speedy trial. Absent a showing of good cause to the contrary, Idaho Code § 19-3501(2) requires the district court to dismiss a felony case [i]f a defendant, whose trial has not been postponed upon his application, is not brought to trial within six (6) months from the date that the information is filed with the court. On January 28, 2008, the State filed an information in the district court charging Defendant with lewd conduct by oral-to-genital contact. The trial in this case did not commence until January 5, 2009, almost one year after the information was filed. Defendant contends that there was no good cause for failing to bring him to trial within the six-month period. Because the trial was postponed upon Defendant's application prior to the running of the six-month period, we need not address whether there was good cause under the statute. Defendant was arraigned in district court on February 6, 2008, and he entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. A jury trial was set to commence on March 24, 2008. On February 26, 2008, Defendant's retained counsel filed a motion to withdraw on the ground that Defendant had not met the terms of their financial agreement. That motion was heard on March 12, 2008, and the court granted the motion. Because Defendant could not afford counsel, the court then reappointed the public defender, who was present in court. The court asked the public defender if he would be ready to proceed to trial on March 24, 2008, and when he answered that he would not, the court rescheduled the jury trial to May 27, 2008. We have not previously addressed whether postponement of the trial at a defendant's request waives the protection of the statute even if the trial is then rescheduled within the six-month period. State v. Young, 136 Idaho 113, 116, 29 P.3d 949, 952 n. 2 (2001). We now answer that question and hold that it does. The statute's wording does not indicate that a defendant loses the statute's protection only if the postponement requested by the defendant causes the trial to be scheduled beyond the six-month period. The statute requires dismissal [i]f a defendant, whose trial has not been postponed upon his application, is not brought to trial within six (6) months from the date that the information is filed with the court. I.C. § 19-3501(2) (emphasis added). To hold that the postponement upon defendant's application waives the protection of the statute only if such postponement causes the trial to be rescheduled beyond the six-month period would require rewriting the statute. Because the initial trial setting was postponed upon Defendant's application, he waived the protection of the statute. Therefore, Idaho Code section 19-3501(2) did not require dismissal of this action once Defendant was not tried within six months after the information was filed.