If a defendant is arrested and a blue warrant is issued on the actions leading to the arrest, then the investigator does not file his affidavit within 48 hours of the arrest, is the defendant entitled to an examining trial if he is only being held on the Blue Warrant?

Same question again if the current arrest is a misdemeanor and the investigator doesn't file the required information within 24 hours.

The defendant is entitled to release on a PR bond if the required PC aff. isn't filed in the appropriate time. When a defendant is on bond, they are still entitled to an examining trial, right?

So, I'm leaning towards 'yes', but I don't have any experience with examining trials, and Art. 16.01 says 'the accused in any felony case shall' but there isn't a case yet without the PC aff. is there?

The fact that the accused has posted bail or been released under 17.033 does not affect his right to an examining trial (though it causes one to question why the ET is requested). I suppose a finding of no probable cause means the bail previously given is discharged, but see 17.09 sec. 2.

There is no right to an examining trial with respect to a pre-revocation warrant issued by the BPP. I do not think the court can interfere with the revocation procedures specified in the Government Code and there is a separate procedure available to challenge those types of warrants. If a formal charge is filed for the new offense, then I guess the accused gets an ET on that charge (even though it may also be the basis for the blue warrant). But why not wait to file a formal charge until indictment under those circumstances?

I can't tell you how many times I had to explain to a defendant in jail on a blue warrant that it was NOT in his best interest to get a dismissal without prejudice because of a technical snafu IF he were going to stay in jail on the blue warrant. The defendant would not get credit for the times he was released on a PR bond on the new charge but would still remain incarcerated on the blue warrant. What would really tick me off as a defense attorney would be when they hired someone else who would do exactly what they wanted (I was usually appointed to these rocket scientists), the guy would remain in jail, have his parole revoked and THEN be indicted on the new charge and not get credit for the 6 months or so that he was "out". Which is why we used to have a motto in my old office--"If they were smart, they wouldn't need us."

The practical application of these circumstances are clumsy though. I called the defense attorney and asked what he hoped to get/what did he want or expect? He didn't know. He was just doing 'something because his client was complaining.' Nice.

I've asked the investigator to file his PC aff. and move the case to us so that we can indict it as soon as possible. I also suggested to the defense attorney that they go off the PR bond so he can start getting credit for time. This whole train of thought drifts me back to something that was discussed many times over regarding doing the defense attorney's job for them.