People v. Mangum.

2022 COA 114. No. 22CA0506. Postconviction Remedies—Speedy Trial.

September 29, 2022

The postconviction court granted Mangum’s Crim. P. 35(c) petition, vacated his convictions and sentences, and ordered a new trial. The People appealed. A Court of Appeals division affirmed, and the case was mandated to the postconviction court on August 20, 2021. On February 23, 2022, Mangum filed a motion to dismiss his charges for violation of his constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial. The court granted the motion.

On appeal, the People argued that the trial court misinterpreted and misapplied the speedy trial statute, asserting that CRS § 18-1-405(1) required Mangum to enter a new plea to trigger the six-month speedy trial period. However, CRS § 18-1-405(1) does not account for a defendant who successfully seeks postconviction relief; the People’s interpretation would effectively condition a defendant’s right to speedy trial on his affirmative request to be arraigned and re-prosecuted. Per People v. Jamerson, 580 P.2d 805 (Colo. 1978), the statutory speedy trial right operating here is CRS § 18-1-405(2). Under CRS § 18-1-405(2), Magnum’s speedy trial period commenced on April 4, 2019, when the postconviction court granted his Rule 35(c) petition. The People then had 183 days to bring him to trial. The speedy trial period was tolled on May 17, 2019, when the People appealed, but it resumed on August 20, 2021, when the Court mandated the case to the postconviction court. Mangum’s speedy trial period expired on January 7, 2022, and the People had not brought him to trial when he moved to dismiss his charges on February 23, 2022. Accordingly, the postconviction court was required to dismiss the charges.

The order was affirmed.