from the District Court of Campbell County The Honorable John
R. Perry, Judge
Representing Appellant: Office of the Public Defender: Diane
M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Kirk A. Morgan, Chief
Appellate Counsel; Robin S. Cooper, Senior Assistant
Representing Appellee: Bridget L. Hill, Wyoming Attorney
General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Christyne
M. Martens, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Benjamin E.
Fischer, Assistant Attorney General.
DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
A jury convicted Luis Antonio Flores-Gomez of first-degree
sexual abuse of a minor. On appeal, he argues that he was
denied a speedy trial under W.R.Cr.P. 48. We affirm.
We rephrase the sole issue on appeal as whether Mr.
Flores-Gomez was denied his right to a speedy trial under
In February 2018, the State charged Mr. Flores-Gomez with one
count of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor, in violation
of Wyoming Statute § 6-2-314(a)(ii). The State alleged
that, between August and November 2016, he inflicted sexual
intrusion on the victim when he was eighteen years of age or
older, the victim was less than eighteen, and he was the
victim's legal guardian or an individual specified in
§ 6-4-402 (the incest statute). Given the issue on
appeal, it is unnecessary to recount the underlying facts of
A court-appointed public defender entered his appearance on
behalf of Mr. Flores-Gomez in the circuit court and demanded
a speedy trial under W.R.Cr.P. 48, the Wyoming Constitution,
and the United States Constitution. The circuit court held a
preliminary hearing and bound the case over to the district
court for arraignment and further proceedings. Defense
counsel filed a similar request for speedy trial in the
On April 9, 2018, the district court arraigned Mr.
Flores-Gomez, starting the 180-day speedy trial clock under
W.R.Cr.P. 48. The court scheduled trial to begin the week of
August 6, 2018. At the pretrial conference in early July, the
court discussed various matters with the parties and decided
to set aside five days for trial. Defense counsel requested
additional time to consider the State's plea offer due to
a language barrier between himself and Mr. Flores-Gomez. The
court agreed to keep the plea date open but asked defense
counsel to address the matter "sooner than later"
because they would need multiple translators for trial, and
it would be difficult to schedule them without advance
When the court subsequently moved the trial to October 1, Mr.
Flores-Gomez, through counsel, moved to vacate and reset the
trial due to a scheduling conflict. In the motion, defense
counsel informed the court that he had "to attend the
annual Public Defender Conference for continued legal
education and training from October 3rd through
the 5th[.]" Defense counsel further informed
the court that Mr. Flores-Gomez was "not willing to
waive speedy trial" and identified his speedy trial
deadline as October 6.
The court held a hearing on the motion at the end of August
where it candidly acknowledged that it did not "know
what to do" about the motion and speedy trial
deadline. Addressing the procedural history of the
case to create a record of the proceedings thus far, the
court explained that it had originally scheduled a five-day
trial for August, but the case did not go forward for various
reasons; then, the court had scheduled the five-day trial
(with two translators) to begin on October 1. When the court
asked for his input, defense counsel informed the court that
he did not know what to do either. He noted that, on one
hand, Mr. Flores-Gomez did not want to waive his right to a
speedy trial. But, on the other hand, defense counsel needed
to attend the conference to fulfill his continuing legal
education requirement for the year. Defense counsel informed
the court that if it ruled that he could not attend the
conference, then he would contact his supervisor about other
training options. The State acknowledged the conundrum but
took no position on its resolution. The court ultimately
decided "to take another look at it and see if
there's someplace that [it could] move this within a very
narrow time frame, that would not unduly prejudice ...