Opinion
No. 1-825 / 00-1471.
Filed January 28, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, TIMOTHY T. JARMAN, District Associate Judge.
Defendant appeals from his judgment and sentence entered upon his conviction of operating while intoxicated, second offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (1997). AFFIRMED.
David P. Jennett, Storm Lake, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas S. Mullin, County Attorney, and Bridget M. Barnes, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Donald Warren Ludvigson appeals from his judgment and sentence entered upon his conviction of operating while intoxicated, second offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (1997). Ludvigson contends the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because his right to speedy trial under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 27(2)(b) was violated. We review the district court's ruling on a motion to dismiss under rule 27(2)(b) for an abuse of discretion. State v. Nelson, 600 N.W.2d 598, 601 (Iowa 1999).
Rule 27(2)(b) states:
If a defendant indicted for a public offense has not waived his or her right to a speedy trial he or she must be brought to trial within ninety days after indictment is found or the court must order the indictment to be dismissed unless good cause to the contrary be shown.
However, dismissal is not compelled where the State proves "(1) defendant's waiver of speedy trial, (2) delay attributable to the defendant, or (3) `good cause' for the delay." Nelson, 600 N.W.2d at 600 (citations omitted).
In this case, the delay was attributable to the Ludvigson. Trial information was filed on May 21, 1998. Ludvigson failed to appear at his arraignment on May 28, 1998, although he signed a form promising to appear when he was released on bond. Ludvigson never received a notification of the bond forfeiture hearing or the notification that judgment had been entered against him because he failed to inform the authorities of his change of address. When he came to the Clerk's office in February 1999 to request return of his bond, he was arrested. He was again released on bond and again failed to appear. However, this time an attorney had filed an appearance. The attorney filed a written arraignment and plea of not guilty on March 24, 1999. Trial was scheduled for May 24, 1999. Because the delay was attributable to the defendant's failure to appear, we find the district court did not err in denying his motion to dismiss.
AFFIRMED.