1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE IT DISCRETION WITHOUT AfFIDAVT WBEN CONTINUEd
AppellaNts TRIAl BeyOND THE LIMITS get forth Rule B.2 LeadINg case, Such
A TRA THEAN TOTHE
U.S. CONST TEATIES ART2.24 ofThE ARIZ.CONST WERE VIOLatd?

THE IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR TREATIES FOR THIS COURT TO DECIDE.

IF Rojs V.SuperIOr Cout of MARICOpA COURT 100 ARIZ. 364(Abb) TS
THE LEADING CaSE UNDTREATIES ARIZCONST PUBUSHED S CE
IN SHe STATE OF ARIZONA WHY THE COURT OF ApPEOlS MEMORANDUM
DECISION overOOKed IN cONfICT wiTH TREATIES LANS SArEv. Vsk
STATE V. Spreit2 190 ARIZ.1I2d A97) FOR Rule 8.2
19.3AR12.142(App1998)

Whether the court abused its discretion in denying the appellant's motion for a speedy trial under the 6th Amendment and Article 2, Section 24 of the Arizona Constitution