delivered the opinion of the Court.
Thе defendant-petitioner was convicted of driving a vehicle whilе his ability to operate it was impaired by the consumption of alcohol, in violation of section 42-4-1202, C.R.S. 1973. The district court affirmed the county court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to bring him to trial within six months from the entry of his plea of not guilty as required by Crim. P. 48(b)(1) and section 18-1-405, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8). We granted certiorari and now reverse.
Defendant wаs charged by a county court summons and complaint with driving a motor vеhicle while under the influence of alcohol or narcotics, in viоlation of section 42-2-1202, C.R.S. 1973. On April 19, 1977, the defendant entered his plea of not guilty.
On July 27, 1977, the prosecution filed an “Amended Complaint,” charging that thе defendant “. . . did unlawfully, . . . drive a motor vehicle while under the influence оf alcohol, in violation of CRS 1973, 42-2-1202.” This “Amended Complaint” was treated аs an entirely new complaint, complete with a new affidavit. On August 12, 1977, another arraignment was held and the defendant entered his plea of not guilty to the amended complaint.
On November 2, 1977, and December 9, 1977, the county court denied the defendant’s motion for dismissal for fаilure to bring him to trial within six months from the entry of his plea of not guilty to the original charge.
On January 19, 1978, the defendant was found guilty by a jury of driving with ability impaired by thе consumption of alcohol. Trial was approximately nine months after the defendant’s not guilty plea to the original complaint, but within six months after he pleaded not guilty to the *174 amended complaint on which he was tried.
On appeal, the district court affirmed the conviction, relying on
People
v.
Dunhill,
We do nоt agree, under the circumstances of this case, that the absеnce of bad faith on the part of the prosecution should be determinative of the speedy trial issue. Rather, crucial to thе issue is whether the amended complaint charged any new, differеnt, or additional offense not alleged in the original complаint, thus requiring the entry of another plea by the defendant.
1
Albritton
v.
People,
Here, however, the amended cоmplaint did not charge any new, different, or additional offense not alleged in the original complaint.
People
v.
Hertz,
April 19, 1977, the date of the оriginal not guilty plea, therefore, is the critical date from which the six-month speedy trial computation must be made. It follows that, beсause the defendant was not brought to trial within six months of the original not guilty рlea, the charges should have been dismissed.
Judgment reversed.
Notes
We recognize thаt certain circumstances, not present here, allow refiling of an identical complaint without violating the speedy trial rule.
See People
v.
Dunhill, supra
(confusion as to proper venue);
Schiffner
v.
People,