Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed November 19, 2010.
Appeal from Barton District Court; Hannelore Kitts, judge.
BY THE COURT
1. Whether the statutory right to a speedy trial has been violated is a matter of law which is reviewed de novo.
2. Only the State is authorized to bring a criminal prosecution to trial, so it is the State's obligation to ensure that a defendant is provided a speedy trial within the statutory limits. A defendant is not required to take any affirmative action to see that his or her right to a speedy trial is observed.
3. Under the facts of this case, when the defendant failed to attend the pretrial hearing and the district court issued a bench warrant for the defendant's arrest, a delay commenced that was the fault of the defendant. Thus, the speedy trial clock stopped running against the State under K.S.A. 22-3402(2) until the defendant was surrendered on the bench warrant.
4. Under the facts of this case, the State did not violate the defendant's statutory right to a speedy trial.
Michelle A. Davis, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Douglas A. Matthews, county attorney, argued the cause, and Carey L. Fleske, assistant county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
Rusty Sievers contends the district court and Court of Appeals both erred in refusing to dismiss the charges against him for violation of his statutory right to a speedy criminal trial.
Finding no violation, we affirm.
[299 Kan. 306] Facts and ...