In People v. Denise Martinez (2000) 22 Cal.4th 750, the defendant was arrested for driving under the influence. After a complaint was issued and notice was sent to the defendant, she failed to appear and the magistrate issued a warrant for her arrest. ( Id. at p. 756.) Almost four years later, the defendant was arrested on unrelated charges and the warrant was discovered. (Ibid.) The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for a violation of her state and federal Constitutional rights to a speedy trial. The trial court denied the motion without prejudice. ( Id. at p. 757.) The Denise Martinez court rejected the defendant's arguments that the differences between the state and federal speedy trial rights should be eliminated. The court first held the filing of a felony complaint or the issuance of an arrest warrant is insufficient to trigger a defendant's speedy trial right under the federal Constitution. ( Id. at p. 765.) The court also held that there is no presumption of prejudice under the California Constitution. ( Id. at p. 766.) In Denise Martinez, there was no discussion of concurrent sentences or of the holding in Salvador Martinez. The Court held: "The state Constitution's speedy trial guarantee ' "protects the accused ... against prolonged imprisonment; it relieves him of the anxiety and public suspicion attendant upon an untried accusation of crime; and ... it prevents him from being 'exposed to the hazard of a trial, after so great a lapse of time' that 'the means of proving his innocence may not be within his reach,--as, for instance, by the loss of witnesses or the dulling of memory.' ..." ... ... When ... the defendant is not subject to restraints following arrest and has not been held to answer or formally charged in the court having jurisdiction to try the offense or offenses alleged, the first two concerns are implicated little or not at all, ... ." ( Denise Martinez, supra, 22 Cal.4th 750, 767-768.)