In Conway v. State, 707 P.2d 930 (Alaska App. 1985), the defendant was arrested and charged on February 8, 1980 ... . Through counsel, he negotiated ... with the state for a resolution of his case without trial. When negotiations broke down, trial was scheduled for the week of November 17, 1980. ... Conway did not appear, and ... his whereabouts were unknown until he was rearrested approximately two months later ... . Id. at 935. The Court held that, under these facts, "all three Russell factors (Russell v. Anchorage ) are present". Indeed, the Court stated that the facts of Conway presented "an even more compelling case than Russell for the recommencement of the 120-day period" because Conway, unlike Russell, was represented by counsel.