^^rsbbm
I was glad to read below that no such argument in Colorado has ever managed the narrow exception window:
C. Colorado’s Speedy Trial Window Calculation when Charges Are Dismissed and Later Refiled: The Restarting Approach
The six-month statutory speedy trial window must restart when the prosecution dismisses and later refiles the same charges,
unless the defendant can affirmatively show that the prosecution “indiscriminately” dismissed and refiled the charges specifically to circumvent the speedy trial mandate.
In contrast, for federal and state constitutional speedy trial purposes, Colorado does not restart the speedy trial period, but rather calculates it from the period of the initial filing of charges to the dismissal plus the period after charges are refiled, without counting the period between the dismissal and refiling.
62.
The exception to restarting the statutory speedy trial window is a “narrow” exception that only applies when the defendant affirmatively shows that the prosecution dismissed the charges to circumvent the statutory speedy trial mandate.
63
Given how narrow this exception is, Colorado courts have yet to find that a defendant has met this burden, and instead routinely allow the speedy trial period to restart. 64
For example, a Colorado appellate court held that the defendant failed to show that the prosecution attempted to circumvent the speedy trial mandate when the prosecution refiled the charges after the defendant successfully moved to dismiss the initial charges due to an impending speedy trial violation, in a case where the prosecution’s “essential” witness was unavailable when only five days remained of the initial speedy trial window.
65
Similarly, a Colorado appellate court held that the defendant did not meet this burden when the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the initial charges after the prosecution, during the initial speedy trial period, asked for a continuance due to the absence of a key witness that would have required setting the trial outside of the initial speedy trial period(but where the prosecution never actually requested a setting outside the speedy trial window).
66
Likewise, the defendant did not meet his burden by offering “proof only that the district attorney sought and obtained a subsequent indictment for different offenses arising from the same transaction.”
67
Further, the exception was not met where the same charges were dismissed and refiled
four times due to “uncertainty as to the proper venue.”
68 In sum, Colorado courts have allowed the speedy trial window to restart in a wide range of situations in which the prosecution could not have brought the case to trial within the initial speedy trial period and/or when the initial speedy trial period was close to expiring when the initial charges were dismissed.
____________________
62. People v. Nelson, 360 P.3d 175, 181 (Colo. App. 2014); see also infra note 236 and accompanying text.
63. People v. Walker, 252 P.3d 551, 552 (Colo. App. 2011) (holding that the exception was not met when the court
sua sponte dismissed the charges days before the expiration of the speedy trial period because the prosecutor’s key witness failed to appear despite the prosecutor’s diligence and where the defendant did not object to the dismissal). See supra note 61 for cases discussing this exception, all of which found that the defendant had not met this burden of showing that the prosecution dismissed and refiled in order to circumvent the speedy trial mandate, and so allowing the speedy trial period to restart for the refiled charges.
64.
See infra note 72 and accompanying text.
65.
Huang, 98 P.3d 924.
66.
Meehan, 762 P.2d 725.
67.
People v. Wilkinson, 555 P.2d 1167, 1170 (Colo. App. 1976).68. People v. Dunhill, 570 P.2d 1097, 1099 (Colo. App. 1977).
Statutory Speedy Trial Period Calc - for Dismissed and Later Refiled
krdo.com
