Baker, J.
Ricky Arion appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for discharge. Arion was serving a prison sentence for unrelated convictions when he was served with a warrant informing him of the present charges. He requested a speedy trial on multiple occasions, but the State made no attempt to try him for well over a year. … Because we find that the delay in bringing Arion to trial was unjustifiable and that it exceeded the length of time allowable under Indiana Criminal Rules 4(B) and 4(C), we reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the charges.
Facts
On September 5, 2013, the State filed charges of burglary, sexual battery, and criminal confinement against Arion in the Carroll Circuit Court. …On September 10, 2013, a law enforcement officer at the Miami Correctional Facility served the warrant on Arion and gave him a copy. For unknown reasons, no law enforcement officer returned the served warrant to the trial court.
A few days later, on September 13, 2013, Arion filed a pro se motion for speedy trial under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B) in the trial court. … The trial court denied the motion, holding that because the arrest warrant had not been returned as served, Arion was “not being held on the above entitled cause” and, therefore, “Rule 4 does not apply.” Id. at 23.
On January 27, 2014, Arion filed a pro se motion to reconsider, arguing that he had been served with the warrant and it was not his duty to ensure that the warrant was returned as served to the trial court. … The trial court summarily denied the motion later that day.
Following this, over a year passed in which the State made no attempt to try Arion. …
….
On July 10, 2015, Arion, this time by counsel, filed a motion for discharge under Rule 4(B), 4(C), and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The trial court denied the motion on August 17, 2015. …
….
Discussion and Decision
Arion argues that his right to a speedy trial was violated and that this case should have been discharged under Indiana Criminal Rules 4(B), 4(C), and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As we believe that Rule 4 provides a sufficient basis for disposing of this case, we need not address Arion’s constitutional arguments. …
….
Indiana Criminal Rule 4 seeks to ensure that the State provides defendants with a speedy trial as mandated by the Constitution. …
Thus, a defendant must be tried within one year of arrest, unless the defendant specifically moves for a speedy trial, in which case he must be tried within seventy days of the motion. … Crim. R. 4.
… In any event, the State does not argue that Arion was never being held on these charges; rather, it contends that the Rule 4 clock did not start ticking until the trial court gained actual knowledge of Arion’s arrest. And it believes that the trial court could only have had actual knowledge of Arion’s arrest once the warrant was returned.
We disagree. Rule 4 places the burden on the State to bring a defendant to trial within the relevant time period and the State is relieved from that duty “only for a delay caused by the defendant’s own act or a continuance had on the defendant’s own motion.” Rust v. State, 792 N.E.2d 616, 618 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). …
….
… As we have previously observed, speedy trials serve not only the interests of criminal defendants, but the interests of the whole of society. …
….
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded and the trial court is instructed to dismiss the State’s charges against Arion for failure to bring him to trial in accordance with Rules 4(B) and 4(C).
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.