On appeal, the State asserts that on April 11, 2007, long after Renteria's speedy trial rights had run, he filed a waiver of his speedy trial rights and that this waiver precludes his speedy trial argument here. However, we are precluded from considering this assertion as we find no evidence in the record that the State raised the waiver issue to the district court or that the significance, if any, of the waiver was addressed below.
The State also suggests it did not file the charge in this case to “manipulate the speedy trial requirement.” However, the State fails to explain the significance of this assertion, nor does it cite any authority to indicate that the State's intent in refiling the charge is a factor to be considered in speedy trial calculations. Moreover, even if we did not add the 105 days in Case No. 05 CR 967 to the speedy trial clock in this case, we would nevertheless be required to find a violation of Renteria's speedy trial rights based upon the delay in this case alone.
[Update: the state did not file a PR and the mandate issued on April 2, 2009].