People ex rel. Coca v. District Court of Seventh Judicial Dist., 26606
| Decision Date | 13 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 26606,26606 |
| Citation | 530 P.2d 958,187 Colo. 280 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. Alfred David COCA, Petitioners, v. DISTRICT COURT OF the SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT and the Honorable Fred C.Calhoun, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Klingsmith, Russell, Angelo & Wright, P.C., Wyatt B. Angelo, Robert E. Wright, Jr., Gunnison, for petitioners.
William J. Knous, Dist. Atty., F. Lynn French, Deputy Dist. Atty., Crested Butte, for respondents.
This original proceeding was brought to obtain a writ of prohibition to compel the trial judge to dismiss a theft charge on the ground that the petitioner was denied a speedy trial. We issued a rule to show cause and now discharge the rule with directions to the trial court.
When the petitioner's motion to dismiss was heard, the trial judge concluded that the motion should be granted under the law relating to a speedy trial, but then held that the people of Gunnison County were entitled to have the petitioner tried in spite of the law. If the constitution, the statutes, the rules, or the case law require dismissal, it is the duty of the trial court to order that the case be dismissed. Evans v. District Court, Colo., 511 P.2d 471 (1973); City of Westminster v. District Court, 167 Colo. 263, 447 P.2d 537 (1968); Bustamante v. District Court, 138 Colo. 97, 329 P.2d 1013 (1958).
The right to a speedy trial is one of the most cherished of our constitutional rights and may not be ignored by a trial judge. The right guaranteed by both the United States and Colorado Constitutions has been formulated to force the prosecution to try a defendant promptly in compliance with the statutes, rules, and constitutional requirements of each case. U.S. Const. amend. VI; Colo.Const. Art. II, Sec. 16; Crim.P. 48; Section 18--1--405, C.R.S.1973; Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). The ABA Standards for Criminal Justice Relating to Speedy Trial set forth that the Colorado practice of requiring mandatory dismissal of a criminal case is the only means of protecting the right. ABA Standards Relating to Speedy Trial § 4.1.
Accordingly, if the petitioner in this case was denied a speedy trial, the trial judge would have had to dismiss the case. However, the record reflects that the delay which occurred did not constitute a violation of the petitioner's right to a speedy trial, but may have resulted in a deprivation of rights by reason of the sheriff's failure to make a timely arrest. In short, the trial judge confused the right to a speedy trial with the petitioner's right to have a criminal case promptly processed by the filing of charges. See United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971).
A review of the facts places this case in proper perspective. A complaint was filed on September 18, 1973, charging the petitioner with theft, and an arrest warrant was issued. At the time the complaint was filed, the sheriff knew that the petitioner was in jail in Pueblo, Colorado, on an unrelated charge. The sheriff elected not to execute the arrest warrant until March 25, 1974. At the time the arrest warrant was issued, the petitioner was in the Pueblo County jail. Within three days after his arrest, Coca was taken before a county judge and advised of his constitutional rights. Thereafter, counsel was appointed for the petitioner, and defense counsel made a timely motion for a preliminary hearing. The date agreed upon for the preliminary hearing was May 7, 1974. Following the preliminary hearing, the petitioner was bound over to the district court for further proceedings. An information was filed in the district court on May 20, 1974. On May 31, 1974, the petitioner was arraigned and plead not guilty. Six weeks later, after plea negotiations were abandoned, Coca filed a motion to dismiss alleging that he had been denied a speedy trial. In considering the motion, both defense counsel and the trial judge centered their attention on the law relating to a speedy trial. Crim.P. 48(b) (1) provides:
Reliance on Crim.P. 48(b)(1) is not warranted. The rule supports a motion to dismiss only when the delay occurs after charges are made or an arrest has been effected and is not directed to delay which transpires prior to arrest. Crim.P. 48 is tied to the historical right and the inherent power of the court to dismiss a case for want of prosecution and is separate and independent of the constitutional right to a speedy trial. 3 C. A. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 814; Mann v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McCoy
...(1973); Preston v. State, 338 A.2d 562 (Del.1975); Henson v. United States, 287 A.2d 106 (D.C.App.1972); see also Coca v. District Court, 187 Colo. 280, 530 P.2d 958 (1975); State v. Allen, 269 S.C. 233, 237 S.E.2d 64 (1977).2 State v. Lindsay, 96 Idaho 474, 531 P.2d 236 (1975); Daniels v. ......
-
People v. Small
...indeed, if defense witnesses become unavailable prior to commencement of formal proceedings. See People ex rel. Coca v. District Court, 187 Colo. 280, 530 P.2d 958 (1975). However, "to prosecute a defendant following investigative delay does not deprive him of due process, even if his defen......
-
P. V. v. District Court In and For Tenth Judicial Dist.
...by our Constitution." Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 87 S.Ct. 988, 18 L.Ed.2d 1 (1967). See People ex rel. Coca v. District Court, 187 Colo. 280, 530 P.2d 958 (1975) (the right to a speedy trial is one of the most cherished of our constitutional In considering the rationale underl......
-
People v. Melanson
...(1995 Cum.Supp.). Finally, because the list set forth in People v. Hall, supra, is not exhaustive, see People ex rel. Coca v. District Court, 187 Colo. 280, 530 P.2d 958 (1975), we conclude that it is appropriate to consider the fact that the victim's body was discovered approximately four ......
-
Section 16 CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS - RIGHTS OF DEFENDANT.
...promptly in compliance with the statutes, rules, and constitutional requirements of each case. People ex rel. Coca v. District Court, 187 Colo. 280, 530 P.2d 958 (1975). A criminal case must be promptly tried, not only to limit the possibility that delay will impair the ability of an accuse......
-
Section 25 DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
...of evidence available to the prosecution; and (4) general considerations of justice and fair play. People ex rel. Coca v. District Court, 187 Colo. 280, 530 P.2d 958 (1975); People v. Hall, 729 P.2d 373 (Colo. 1986). Delay of trial for criminal investigation. When the government takes time ......
-
Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied
...criminal justice system requires and deserves no less. NOTES _____________________ Footnotes: 1. People ex rel. Coca v. District Court, 530 P.2d 958 (Colo. 1975). 2. People v. Murphy, 515 P.2d 107 (Colo. 1973); People v. Lopez, 587 P.2d 792 (Colo.App. 1978); Marquez v. District Court, 613 P......