In People v. Arledge, 938 P.2d 160 (Colo. 1997), the defendant objected to having to choose between his right to ask for a substitution of judge and his right to a speedy trial. Despite the court and the prosecution being "on notice of defendant's adherence to maintaining the speedy trial request," no effort was made to ascertain whether the case could have been tried within the speedy trial period. People v. Arledge, supra, 938 P.2d at 167. Because the trial court and the prosecution bear the responsibility to ensure compliance with the speedy trial statute, the Arledge court concluded that the trial delay was not chargeable to the defendant, and that the charges were properly dismissed. The trial court initially denied the defendant's motion for recusal but, subsequently, granted the motion the day before trial. The trial court then requested and obtained a speedy trial waiver from the defendant. Thirty-three days later, at the expiration of the original six-month speedy trial period, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss with the reassigned judge, which was granted. The supreme court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding that no delay was chargeable to the defendant. People v. Arledge, supra.