For starters, you can call it a procedural due process exception, a violation of constitutional rights, or a human rights violation, this is in no way shape or form any different that the argument Benhoor brought before the appellate and although he still had PC 1382 and a presumed federal violation of his right to a speedy trial, the entire idea of a dismissal was rejected simply because that is NOT a remedy offered by the same rules he claimed were violated. Instead, and "if the defendant is dissatisfied with the decision of the court in a TBD, then he is free to submit a timely request for a TDN and try his luck again!
I prefer to assume that the appellate is a bit smarter than to get caught snoozing on the bench so as to buy into a simple play on words that suggests that the "officer's return date" is neither a "due date" or a "time limit"... If it is neither a due date or a time limit, then why are you making such a big issue of the possibility that it was "exceeded"?
Let me address this part first:
A mandatory requirement as much as Benhoor's "... the clerk must set a trial date within 45 calendar days of receipt of the defendant’s written request for a new trial..." was and still is a mandatory requirement and request for dismissal it still got REJECTED!
But that is not the only allowance available for approving a different procedure...
4.210 (h) Additional forms and procedures
The clerk may approve and prescribe forms, time limits, and procedures that are not in conflict with or not inconsistent with the statute or this rule.
There is no mention of "record", "record entries" and/or "minutes"!
And allowing the officer's declaration (I'll even play along for a minute) after the "officer's return date" and as long as it does not conflict with or delay the date the case is scheduled for review...
Whether its a writ or a full fledged appeal, this has Benhoor written all over it!

