has time to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to file charges. Other jurisdictions have similarly held that the speedy trial clock begins to run on the date of indictment where the defendant was reincarcerated for prior convictions. An Idaho Appeals Court decision is instructive on the issue of denial of parole due to “pending charges” for which the defendant had not yet been indicted. State v. Brashier, 127 Idaho 730, 905 P.2d 1039 (Idaho Ct.App.1995). The defendant in Brashier claimed that pending charges caused a denial of his parole for a prior conviction even though he had yet to be formally indicted for any new offenses. Id. at 1042. For this reason, he claimed, the speedy trial clock should run from the date of a letter from a sheriff to the parole commiss pp.1991) (<HOLDING>); Knowlton v. State, 795 P.2d 1287, 1288-89
holding that the defendants arrest for parole violations did not trigger the running of the speedy trial clock on murder charges even though the murder charge arose from the same conduct as the parole violations holding that arrest of a parolee for parole violation does not trigger the speedy trial period for the underlying offense holding that the state courts decision to uphold the parole boards denial of parole was an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence holding that indictment for murder in the first degree charges murder by whatever means it may have been committed regardless of the theory of murder presented to the grand jury holding that the speedy trial clock for state charges did not begin to run when the defendant was taken into custody by federal authorities on federal charges but rather when he was indicted for the state charges