to begin a trial under a rule intended to guarantee a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. Having determined that notice is a relevant consideration in this case, we turn to the question of whether the six-day notice by mail received by Defendant was sufficient. The State has offered no reason why Defendant should be offered less notice for his trial than the eight days by mail that would generally be required for a hearing on a motion, and we can think of none. See Rule 7-104(C), (D) (stating that notice of a motion hearing is not less than five days, generally, with three extra days for service by mail). Furthermore, because this case was re-filed after being dismissed, the notice sent to Defendant of his trial date is akin to a summons. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1436 (6th ed. 1990) (<HOLDING>). • A summons served by mail must be sent a
recognizing the cause of action holding that where a trial court directs a defendant to file a concise statement pursuant to parap 1925 any issues not raised in that statement shall be waived holding that trial court did not err in refusing to give charge because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his requested charge was tailored to the evidence holding that the plain error review provided for in ocga  17858 is waived where the defendant requested the charge in question and made no objection to the charge at trial recognizing that a summons to a criminal defendant commences the states action and directs the individual to appear in court to answer the charge