Speedy Trial Deadline Blown – Violation Undoes Sex Assault Conviction As Colorado Court Orders Dismissal With Prejudice

The prosecution’s second argument—that defense conduct caused the delays—met an even more definitive rejection. The panel found it “simply cannot be said” that Mares or his counsel were responsible for the scheduling conflicts. More fundamentally, they reminded everyone involved that speedy trial compliance isn’t the defendant’s job. “The burden of compliance” rests with the court and the District Attorney’s Office, not with defense counsel trying to navigate an overburdened system.

The panel drove this point home by citing People v. DeGreat, a 2020 Colorado Supreme Court decision establishing that defendants need only “move for a dismissal prior to trial” to preserve their speedy trial rights. No obligation to police the court’s calendar. No duty to remind judges when statutory provisions expire. Just show up and object before the trial starts, which is exactly what Mares did.

What makes this decision particularly instructive is how it illustrates the difference between emergency legal measures and permanent systemic fixes. The 2021 COVID-19 extension wasn’t a general grant of authority to manage pandemic backlogs indefinitely. It was a temporary patch with a specific expiration date, and when that date passed, the normal constitutional requirements snapped back into effect immediately.