Osban v. State, 439 P.3d 739

Osban was arraigned May 5, 2017 on aggravated assault and methamphetamine possession; he demanded a speedy trial under W.R.Cr.P. 48.
The trial deadline under Rule 48 (180 days) was November 1, 2017; the trial was ultimately held November 15, 2017 (194 days after arraignment).
The district court had placed Osban on a crowded trial "stack" and had originally scheduled trial for August/October dates before vacating the October 16 setting.
On October 5–6, 2017 the court issued a bench warrant after the State filed to revoke bond for positive drug/alcohol tests; Osban surrendered October 12 and counsel was later told the October 16 setting had been vacated.
The court reset trial beyond the Rule 48 deadline without giving Osban contemporaneous written notice and an opportunity to object under Rule 48(b)(4)(C); Osban moved to dismiss on November 6, 2017 and the court denied the motion.
The jury convicted Osban of methamphetamine possession; the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the conviction on Rule 48 speedy-trial grounds and did not address the suppression claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether W.R.Cr.P. 48 was violated when trial occurred 194 days after arraignment	Osban: court sua sponte vacated the October 16 trial and reset beyond 180 days without notifying him or allowing objection, so Rule 48 was violated	State: continuance was justified by due administration of justice (crowded docket) and Osban was notified/had opportunity to object; no substantial prejudice	Reversed: court violated Rule 48 because it failed to follow (b)(4)(C) notice/objection procedure before continuing trial in the due administration of justice
Whether district court erred denying suppression of methamphetamine found in truck	Osban: search of container in truck was unreasonable and evidence should be suppressed	State: search lawful (arguments asserted below)	Not reached: appellate court reversed on speedy-trial grounds and did not decide suppression

Castellanos v. State, 366 P.3d 1279 (Wyo. 2016) (Rule 48 is mandatory but does not prescribe a rigid multi-step procedure for every rescheduling)
Rodiack v. State, 55 P.3d 1 (Wyo. 2002) (W.R.Cr.P. 48 provisions are mandatory)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (constitutional speedy-trial analysis framework)
Germany v. State, 999 P.2d 63 (Wyo. 2000) (docket management may justify continuance under Rule 48(b)(4)(B)(iii) when defendant is notified and may object)
Vlahos v. State, 75 P.3d 628 (Wyo. 2003) (defendant must be put on notice of possible continuance and given chance to raise speedy-trial concerns)
Taylor v. State, 17 P.3d 715 (Wyo. 2001) (continuance in due administration of justice must follow notice/objection procedures)