Tongish v. Arapahoe County Court, 87CA1419
| Docket Nº | No. 87CA1419 |
| Citation | 775 P.2d 63 |
| Case Date | March 02, 1989 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
Page 63
v.
ARAPAHOE COUNTY COURT, State of Colorado, and the Honorable
Richard Jauch, one of the Judges thereof,
Respondents-Appellants.
Div. III.
Rehearing Denied March 23, 1989.
Certiorari Denied June 19, 1989.
Law Firm of Leonard M. Chesler, Leonard M. Chesler, Rod Allison, Denver, for petitioner-appellee.
Robert R. Gallagher, Jr., Dist. Atty., Brian K. McHugh, Deputy Dist. Atty., Englewood, for respondents-appellants.
Page 64
NEY, Judge.
Respondents, the Arapahoe County Court and the Honorable Richard Jauch, appeal from a district court order which determined that the county court had abused its discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction by refusing to dismiss the complaint against defendant, Thomas Norman Tongish. The district court found that defendant's right to a speedy trial had been violated. We affirm.
Defendant pleaded not guilty to a charge of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He sought and was granted three continuances of the pretrial conference. He waived his right to a speedy trial when the first two continuances were sought, but not for the third, and both parties agree that the speedy trial period thus began to run from the end of the period covered by defendant's last waiver of his speedy trial rights, i.e., March 14, 1986.
Although the third date for a pretrial conference had been scheduled for May 5, 1986, defendant sought and obtained another continuance for 30 days because of a scheduling conflict. The final pretrial conference date had been scheduled for June 5, 1986, but was vacated once more at defendant's request.
During this entire period no trial date had been set. No reason for not setting a trial date appears in the record. Rather than again continuing the pretrial conference, the county court set the case for jury trial to commence on August 25, 1986, within the statutory six-month period from March 14, 1986.
On August 6, two months after the trial date had been set, the district attorney moved to continue the trial because his key witness would be unavailable. The motion was heard on August 25, 1986, the date of the scheduled trial. The county court granted the motion over defendant's objection and reset the trial date to October 6.
Acknowledging that the October 6 date was more than six months beyond defendant's last waiver of speedy trial, the county court nonetheless found that there was no violation of the speedy trial deadline, which would otherwise have occurred on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. G.S.S., Court of Appeals No. 17CA1678
...actions that result in a continuance of a hearing date waive, toll, or extend a speedy trial period. See Tongish v. Arapahoe Cty. Court , 775 P.2d 63 (Colo. App. 1989) (holding that only delays that impede the statutory goal of bringing a defendant to trial within the statutory speedy trial......
-
People v. Duncan, 98CA2305.
...16. The Colorado speedy trial statute is intended to implement the constitutional right to speedy trial, Tongish v. Arapahoe County Court, 775 P.2d 63 (Colo.App.1989), and prevent unnecessary delays caused by the prosecution or the court. People v. Arledge, 938 P.2d 160 (Colo.1997); People ......
-
People v. G.S.S., Court of Appeals No. 17CA1678
...actions that result in a continuance of a hearing date waive, toll, or extend a speedy trial period. See Tongish v. Arapahoe Cty. Court, 775 P.2d 63 (Colo. App. 1989) (holding that only delays that impede the statutory goal of bringing a defendant to trial within the statutory speedy trial ......
-
People ex rel. Gallagher In and For Eighteenth Judicial Dist. v. District Court In and For County of Arapahoe, 96SA294
...no applicable exceptions or exclusions, then the charges against the defendant must be dismissed. See Tongish v. Arapahoe County Court, 775 P.2d 63, 64 Page 588 One of the recognized exceptions to the six month speedy trial time frame is found in section 18-1-405(3) which states: If a trial......