In State v. Paris-Sheldon, 214 Ariz. 500, 154 P.3d 1046 (App. 2007), the court considered a similar fact pattern with a very different procedural history. There, after initial charges were dismissed and refiled, the defendant moved to dismiss the second prosecution based on a purported Rule 8 violation in the first case. Id. at 504,5-6, 154 P.3d at 1050. The superior court denied the motion, and the defendant was convicted in the second prosecution. Id. at 6-7. The court of appeals held that an appeal from a conviction in a subsequent prosecution could not raise the issue of the denial of a motion to dismiss based on an alleged speedy trial violation in the initial prosecution. Id. at 508,24, 154 P.3d at 1054. The court was not presented with the question of special action jurisdiction. In reaching its holding, the court treated the use of an appeal as analogous to invited error -- the defendant allowed the case to proceed to judgment before raising the issue of the earlier Rule 8 violation. Id. The court concluded that the appropriate course of action would have been a motion for reconsideration or special action filed in the first case. Id.