 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
CITY OF DODGE CITY v. RABE6/15/1990
torney.
Historically, the duty to prosecute a case rested with the prosecution. That view has been modified, and the trial judge now also has responsibility for management of the trial calendar. Obviously, the prosecution also has at least an equal duty to see that an accused is not denied a speedy trial.
In State v. Higby, 210 Kan. 554, 502 P.2d 740 (1972), our Supreme Court held that the obligation to bring a defendant to trial within the time limitations provided by the speedy trial statute is on the State and the defendant is not required to take any affirmative action. The court went on to hold:
"Only the state is empowered to bring a criminal charge to trial; hence the duty of procuring prompt trial rests upon the state (see ABA Standards, Speedy Trial, Approved Draft, 1968, § 2.2, p. 17); however, the ultimate responsibility for management of the trial calendar is in the trial court (ibid., § 1.2, pp. 11-12; ABA Standards; The Function of the Trial Judge, Tentative Draft, § 1.1 (a), pp. 25-26; § 3.8, pp. 48-49)." 210 Kan. at 556.
Our dilemma in this appeal arises because of three cases decided before the statutes permitted notice of appeal from municipal courts> to be filed directly in the district court. The results
reached in those cases appear to us to be inconsistent with a second line of cases dealing with misdemeanor criminal cases commenced in the district court. The three cases involving appeals from a municipal court are City of Elkhart v. Bollacker, 243 Kan. 543, 757 P.2d 311 (1988); City of Garnett v. Zwiener, 229 Kan. 507, 625 P.2d 491 (1981); and City of Overland Park v. Fricke, 226 Kan. 496.
In Fricke, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of a case for denial of a statutory speedy trial. Fricke was convicted in the municipal court. He perfected an appeal. At that time, notices of appeal were filed in the municipal court. Fricke appeared in the district court at a docket call and announced he was maintaining his not guilty plea and wanted a trial. Some eight months later, the trial judge dismissed the case for failure to bring the defendant to trial within the 180-day limit required by K.S.A. 22-3402(2). The city argued on appeal that the speedy trial statute was not applicable to municipal court appeals in the district court. This argument is premised on the fact that the speedy trial statute requires an accused to be brought to trial within 180 days "after arraignment on the charge." The city conceded that the appeal was properly taken, that defendant was held to answer under appeal bond, and that the defendant was not tried within 180 days from his first appearance in district court.
The Supreme Court held that the obligation is placed on the prosecution to proceed with reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal cases and that the speedy trial statute applies to appeals from a municipal court. 226 Kan. at 501-02. The court then concluded that the time limitations provided in the speedy trial statute commences to run from the date the appeal is, or should have been, docketed in the district court. In the same paragraph, the court stated the time limitation should commence to run when there is, or should be, a complaint against the defendant pending in the district court. 226 Kan. at 502.
In the case before this court, the appeal was docketed in the district court, but no complaint was filed in the district court because the city attorney did not receive notice the appeal had been filed.
We view Fricke as holding the speedy trial statute applies to municipal court appeals (possibly on the theory that the accused has already bee
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|