Najam, J.
On July 19, 2012, the State charged Byron Tinker [footnote omitted] with one Class D felony and three Class A misdemeanors. On February 19, 2015, Tinker filed a motion to dismiss because he had not been brought to trial within the one year required by Criminal Rule 4(C). The trial court denied Tinker’s motion, but certified that decision for interlocutory appeal. On appeal, Tinker argues the trial court erroneously assigned periods of time to him that should have counted against the State for Rule 4(C) calculations. We reverse and order the charges against Tinker dismissed with prejudice.
….
[On July 31, 2012, the trial court scheduled trial for November 12, 2012. On January 8, 2013, trial was reset by the parties’ agreement for March 12, 2013. An April 2, 2013 CCS entry shows trial reset for June 11, 2013.Then a July 30, 2013 CCS entry shows trial reset for October 1, 2013; and an entry for August 28, 2013 shows “Plea offer outstanding.” The trial date passed without a CCS entry.]
The next CCS entry is 391 days later, on September 23, 2014. On that date, the court set … trial for January 27, 2015. The prosecutor and defense counsel appeared on November 3, 2014, but “Def. not present. Dates remain set.” The CCS entry for the pretrial conference on December 3, 2014, states:
State by DPA Michaelia Gilbert. Def. by Defense Counsel Mitch Harlan. Both counsel unavailable due to quantity of cases on the docket. Dates remain set.
A CCS entry for the January 14, 2015, status conference indicates:
State present by DPA Gilbert. Jury trial is set for 1/27/15. Counsel has not had contact with defendant in some time. State requests warrant for FTA for Final Plea Deadline.
No CCS entry occurred on January 27, 2015, when the trial was scheduled.
On February 19, 2015, Tinker filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him because the State had not brought him to trial within the 365 days required by Criminal Rule 4(C). The trial court denied Tinker’s motion in a CCS entry that stated: “Court waives/denies Motion for CR4, due to untimely filed objection.” …
….
Tinker was arrested on July 16, 2012, and the State filed charges against him on July 19, 2012. Thus, the one-year period in which he needed to be tried began to run on July 19, 2012. See Crim. R. 4(C) (“one year from the date the criminal charge against such defendant is filed, or from the date of his arrest on such charge, whichever is later”).
Sixty-nine days later, on September 26, 2012, the parties appeared at a pretrial conference and informed the court that a plea had been offered and accepted. The November 13 trial date [that had been set shortly after charges were filed] remained on the court’s calendar, but no proceedings occurred. Then, on January 8, 2013, by “agreement of the parties the Court now resets” trial for March 12, 2013. (Appellant’s App. at 2.)
The trial court assigned the 167 days between September 26, 2012, and March 12, 2013, to Tinker. On appeal, Tinker concedes he is responsible for “the period from when the notation at a pretrial conference that there is an agreement, until the end of the new trial date setting . . . [because] [d]uring that period, the defendant did not act in a way consistent with the speedy trial rule.” (Appellants’ Br. at 10.) We accept Tinker’s concession and assign those 167 days to him.
….
Tinker’s case was scheduled to be tried on March 12, 2013, June 11, 2013, and October 1, 2013. Although Indiana Trial Rule 77(B) requires that, “The judge of the case shall cause Chronological Case Summary entries to be made of all judicial events,” all of those scheduled dates for Tinker’s trial passed without a CCS entry to explain why the case was not tried. Pursuant to Alter [v. State, 860 N.E.2d 874, 879 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)], we may not remand for the trial court to explain those delays at this late date, as the record already should have contained the support required to determine their proper assignment. [Citation omitted.] Thus, the 203 days that passed between March 12, 2013, and October 1, 2013, are included in the 365-day deadline.
As of October 1, 2013, 272 (i.e., 69+203) of the 365 days in which Tinker needed to be tried had passed. The next action taken in the State’s cause against Tinker was 357 days later on September 23, 2014, when the trial court set trial for January 27, 2015. The trial court assigned those 357 days to Tinker because “there’s no objection made in time for the State to try you within the 365 days.” That determination was also error. * * * Tinker had an obligation to object only if, during the 365 day period, the court scheduled a new trial outside the 365 day period.
On September 23, 2014, the court rescheduled trial for 2015. 357 days had passed since the court’s prior action on October 1, 2013, at which point 272 days had passed. As such, by the court’s act in September of 2014, 629 days had passed. There was no occasion on which, during the one-year period, the court attempted to reset trial outside the one-year period. Therefore, the trial court erred when it found Tinker had a duty to object.
….
We reverse the court’s decision and order the charges against Tinker dismissed with prejudice.
Reversed and remanded.
Baker, J., and Najam, J., concur.