Opinion
No. 79SA223
Decided December 10, 1979.
Appeal by the district attorney, on a question of law pursuant to statute, involving the defendants who were not brought to trial within six months following their arraignment.
Affirmed
1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Speedy Trial — Compliance — Burden. It is the burden of the prosecutor and the trial court to comply with the requirements of both the speedy trial statute and rule.
2. Speedy Trial — Lack of Waiver — Not Within Six Months — Dismissal. Where the defendants were not brought to trial within the six months that followed their arraignment, and did not waive their right to a speedy trial, held, under the circumstances, their motion to dismiss was properly granted.
Appeal from the District Court of Custer County, Honorable Max C. Wilson, Judge.
John Anderson, District Attorney, for plaintiff-appellant.
J. Gregory Walta, State Public Defender, Shelley Gilman, Deputy, for defendants-appellees.
This is an appeal by the district attorney on a question of law, section 16-12-102, C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1978 Repl. Vol. 8). The defendants were not brought to trial within the six months that followed their arraignment, and an interpretation of the speedy trial provisions, section 18-1-405(1), C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1978 Repl. Vol. 8) and Crim. P. 48 is the sole issue before us.
[1,2] It is the burden of the prosecution and the trial court to comply with the requirements of both the speedy trial statute and rule. People v. Colantonio, 196 Colo. 242, 583 P.2d 919 (1978); People v. Lopez, 41 Colo. App. 206, 587 P.2d 792 (1978). The defendants did not waive their right to a speedy trial and their motion to dismiss was properly granted. Harrington v. District Court, 192 Colo. 351, 559 P.2d 225 (1977); Tasset v. Yeager, 195 Colo. 190, 576 P.2d 558 (1978).
Accordingly, we affirm.