A criminal defendant's right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and by Mont. Const. art. II, § 24. State v. Ariegwe, 2007 MT 204, ¶ 20, 338 Mont. 442, 167 P.3d 815.
In order to address a speedy trial claim, a trial court must first make findings of fact. An appellate court reviews those factual findings to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. A trial court's factual findings are clearly erroneous if they are not supported by substantial credible evidence, if the trial court has misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if a review of the record leaves the appellate court with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. While the factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, whether those facts amount to a violation of the defendant's right to a speedy trial is a question of constitutional law. An appellate court reviews a trial court's conclusions of law de novo to determine whether the trial court's interpretation and application of the law are correct. State v. Houghton, 2010 MT 145, ¶ 13, 357 Mont. 9, 234 P.3d 904.
Whether the right to speedy trial has been violated is a question of law, and we will review the district court's legal conclusions to determine whether the interpretation of law is correct. State v. Bertolino, 2003 MT 266, P 10, 317 Mont. 453, 77 P.3d 543 (citing State v. Chesarek, 1998 MT 15, P 9, 287 Mont. 215, 953 P.2d 698). We will review for clear error any of the district court's factual findings underlying the application of § 46-13-401(2), MCA. City of Helena v. Roan, 2010 MT 29, P7, 355 Mont. 172, 226 P.3d 601.