nature of witness’ availability at original trial date). Due Process {30} Defendant also argues that the delay in concluding the amenability hearing on remand violated his due process rights. “To prevail on a claim that delay in the proceedings violated Defendant’s right to due process, Defendant must prove prejudice and an intentional delay by the State to gain a tactical advantage.” State v. Gibson, 113 N.M. 547, 559, 828 P.2d 980, 992 (Ct.App.1992). The prejudice shown must be “actual” and “substantial.” Id. For the same reasons just discussed, the record does not demonstrate any of these features. Rule 5-604 {31} Defendant argues that the delay in this case also violates the six-month rule, Rule 5-604(B) NMRA 2000. See Michael S., 124 N.M. 732, 955 P.2d 201, 1998-NMCA-041. ¶ 9 (<HOLDING>); Rule 10-101(A)(2) NMRA 2000 (holding rules of
holding sixmonth rule applies to youthful offender proceedings holding  2254 applies to administrative proceedings holding sixmonth rule suspended based on parties agreement that proceedings be held in abeyance pending ruling by court on plea bargain holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that the exclusionary rule under the fourth amendment applies to civil forfeiture proceedings