Criminal Law Questions? Ask a Criminal Lawyer.
Thank you for using JustAnswer. I am researching your issue and will respond shortly.
I'm sorry to hear about your situation. Did they continue the case because of inability to hear it (length of docket, etc...)?
i really dont know they never said the judge would order me on the next docket available for trial and i would exspect to go to trial and would gat another letter to fo to another pre-trial no explanation why
And to be clear, you never requested any of these continuances (nor your public defender)?
they didnt give me my discovery the first time so i dont knoe if my attorney continued the judge or prosacuter
You should make a motion to dismiss pursuant to KSA 22-3402.
KSA 22-3402: Discharge of persons not brought promptly to trial.(1) If any person charged with a crime and held in jail solely by reason thereof shall not be brought to trial within 90 days after such person's arraignment on the charge, such person shall be entitled to be discharged from further liability to be tried for the crime charged, unless the delay shall happen as a result of the application or fault of the defendant, or a continuance shall be ordered by the court under subsection (5).
(2) If any person charged with a crime and held to answer on an appearance bond shall not be brought to trial within 180 days after arraignment on the charge, such person shall be entitled to be discharged from further liability to be tried for the crime charged, unless the delay shall happen as a result of the application or fault of the defendant, or a continuance shall be ordered by the court under subsection (5).
(3) If any trial scheduled within the time limitation prescribed by subsection (1) or (2) is delayed by the application of or at the request of the defendant, the trial shall be rescheduled within 90 days of the original trial deadline.
(4) After any trial date has been set within the time limitation prescribed by subsection (1) or (2), if the defendant fails to appear for the trial or any pretrial hearing, and a bench warrant is ordered, the trial shall be rescheduled within 90 days after the defendant has been surrendered on such warrant. However, if the defendant was subject to the 180-day deadline prescribed by subsection (2) and more than 90 days of the original time limitation remain, then the original time limitation remains in effect.
(5) The time for trial may be extended beyond the limitations of subsections (1) and (2) for any of the following reasons:
(a) The defendant is incompetent to stand trial. If the defendant is subsequently found to be competent to stand trial, the trial shall be scheduled within 90 days of such finding;
(b) A proceeding to determine the defendant's competency to stand trial is pending and a determination thereof may not be completed within the time limitations fixed for trial by this section. If the defendant is subsequently found to be competent to stand trial, the trial shall be scheduled within 90 days of such finding;
(c) There is material evidence which is unavailable; that reasonable efforts have been made to procure such evidence; and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that such evidence can be obtained and trial commenced within the next succeeding 90 days. Not more than one continuance may be granted the state on this ground, unless for good cause shown, where the original continuance was for less than 90 days, and the trial is commenced within 120 days from the original trial date;
(d) Because of other cases pending for trial, the court does not have sufficient time to commence the trial of the case within the time fixed for trial by this section. Not more than one continuance of not more than 30 days may be ordered upon this ground.
(6) In the event a mistrial is declared or a conviction is reversed on appeal to the supreme court or court of appeals, the time limitations provided for herein shall commence to run from the date the mistrial is declared or the date the mandate of the supreme court or court of appeals is filed in the district court.
As you can see, the reasons for a delay are limited, and if it is because of a mere delay because of other cases, then that can only be 30 days added.
So even considering continance based on discovery (120 days) and other cases (30 days), that would be 330 days...
Now I assume this 365 days was from your arraignment?
Do you have the date of your arraignment?
is that the preliminary hearing
It's where you pled not guilty.
So that was 326 days...
You can still argue that this should be dismissed because of this law.
If not, the trial will have to be commenced in 4 days (assuming you don't do anything to delay)...
great do you think it will work
I think that if you had a better attorney, it would have a far better chance of working. PDs are overworked, underpaid attorneys that generally don't have the time, resources or experience to properly argue these matters.
I do think that it has a chance of working, and you should absolutely bring it up.
Get it on the record, and it might be something that can be appealed.
you are so right/ well i have to get ready for court again. thank you
i went to the pre trial conf. on that friday the public defender told the judge he was just handed the case but was ready to go to pick a jury on monday morning and proceed to trial but when ask he had information on a dui case that has already been resolved. he did not have a scratch of paper on my case. i argued on the point you give me to dismiss to no avail the judge told them to schedule trial for feb and the district attorney ask that time not be against them which the judge agreed. this whole time my public defender did not say one word in my hearing i did all the talking. when he told the judge he was just handed this case i told him he was a lier he represented me at my last pre-trial confrence. i never laid eyes on him then until i walked into the court room and the only words he smoke to me then was at the end of the hearing he turned and said get your witnesses togather. after the hearing he ask me if he could copy my files so i let him. i called his office and told the secretary to tell him to appeal the judges decision. and to file a rule 600. but havent heard anything back from him. i dont know how to get it on record i ask him to do this or ask the court myself as there is no records kept of a hearing. i wouldnt know how to do it any way. it sure looks like i am being flushed down the tubes because i am poor and can not afford a real attorney. i dont know what to do
how do i tell the judge and when that my attorney fail to communicate and can not prepare my defence and get it on the record. how would i do this?
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).