Did the Trial Court violate the Petitioner's Constitutional right to a speedy trial by denying continuance motions over ten months before trial?

'0 +*ie' +r'al Court viole, -tKe, Pe+it)oner,s ConbMu+ionol n'gVit +0 « speejy 4r;a| w/,en +ke. trial court H>ep + 6 ran tin a -lt,& stated C»Mt;Nu«n fie motion* ouer a period of , Ten md>wtKs ; Before ike Petitioner wo& Qr/j. Ofoufoi -\Q trlq\ ^ 20Did nWe Tr.'qICour+ Con5eni ■+£? Ui+'.na 4^e Sip-ire. Force. 4Ke Feiii/oner into g\ Hobson ’ ^h/iee. °n 6when 4be *rr/q| Couridenied -phe S moi/o/V order -for Deposits ?deten danV ^0 Did “The TrialC otip| AbuseXis duscfei'ioM IN yanr>n f Con+inuoncei be/ond Cfim.R, 3,3 fime | Sand balP(\S h, Super . ci. 0-f 4^ &'°3 ‘in te^ues+.ng Defendants F.’n^er pfinis 7 # HO D/d -iho +riq| CourteFf in deN/y/coi »ofier 5 CrR $*3 /no4ic>fsj ? e\/en 4Y\Pei'. +', *tV\e. State revealed Sqpp ressej dur'.n°vgh ^^»*den eg cloSir\ <) flr^tinnen43 ^ 1