is “critical” to the analysis of a speedy-trial claim. State v. Woodall, 801 So.2d 678, 684 (Miss.2001). In Woodall, the defendant never made a demand for a speedy trial during the period between his arrest and his indictment, a period of 366 days. Id. at 684. The defendant argued that “there was no means by which [he] could have forced the speedy trial issue.” Id. at 685. The State disagreed, asserting that it receives such demands regularly. Id. In reversing the dismissal of the claims against the defendant, this Court held that, while a defendant does not have to raise the speedy-trial issue to preserve it, he does have a duty, according to Barker, to assert that right. Id. E.g., Watts v. State, 733 So.2d 214, 236 (Miss.1999); Stogner v. State, 627 So.2d 815, 819 (Miss.1993) (<HOLDING>). The defendant failed to do so in a timely
recognizing that djelay arising from hearing the defendants motions not caused by the prosecution is not weighed against the prosecution in a speedy trial analysis holding that a defendants failure to assert the right to speedy trial must be weighed against him in barker analysis holding that defendants assertion of his right to a speedy trial two months before his trial began did not satisfy this barker factor holding that the defendants failure to assert his right to a speedy trial until one year after his arrest weighed heavily against him under this barker factor holding that the constitutional right to a speedy trial includes the right to a reasonably prompt sentencing