Court Opinion

ID: 9505258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:02:58.312711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:22.104639
License: Public Domain

BOEHM, J.,
concurring in result.
I concur, but note that it appears that the defendant may have agreed (or failed to object) to a trial setting that would have tolled the time for his release under Mills v. State and Bowens v. State. However, there is no response to the defendant's petition, and on this record I am uncertain precisely what occurred. I concur in the result for that reason.
I agree that the majority accurately describes language from Mills v. State and Bowens v. State as dicta. However, it seems to me that construing the right to release pending trial under C.R. 4(A) in a manner out of synchronization with the right to be tried under C.R. 4(B) and (C) produces an unnecessary complication and trap for unwary prosecutors and judges. Mills and Bowens establish a common timetable for both rules, and inadvertent release of individuals presenting a flight or security risk is not something we should encourage.
. Perhaps the rules should be amended to make clear that the right to release and the right to be tried are on the same timetable. In the meantime I would adhere to the Bowens/Mills language that produces that result, at least in most cases.