part of the crime is that the defendant was legally called under the terms of his bail bond or promise to appear); Trice v. United States, 525 A.2d 176, 178-80 (D.C.1987) (affirming conviction where the defendant failed to appear for a court date, holding that willfullness was properly inferred from the defendant having received written notice, and stating that the defendant must have been required to appear in court on a specified date); Raymond v. United States, 396 A.2d 975, 976-77 (D.C.1979) (affirming conviction where the defendant failed to appear at scheduled status hearing, stating that one on when the trial court’s order specifying the required appearance date was too vague. See Ellmore, supra, § 25[h], at 1137 (citing State v. Mouttet, 372 N.W.2d 121, 123 (S.D.1985) (<HOLDING>)). {19} Referring specifically to the failure
holding that the defendant was denied due process because the procedural rule was not followed in any respect by the trial court holding that even if the calculation commenced on the date of the first indictment the defendants right to a speedy trial was not violated holding that the trial courts order violated due process because it was unclear whether or not the defendant was required to appear on the date in question holding that due process was violated where a death sentence was imposed based on information in a presentence report and the defendant was not given an opportunity to deny or explain the information holding that petitioners reliance on a case which concluded that a defendants right to a fair trial was violated was insufficient to place court on notice that petitioner was advancing a constitutional due process claim because the decision was based on state law